Preamble

The House being met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, the CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage District) Bill,

North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make arising out of the report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, relating to the forcible entry of Japanese marines into the Hongkew general hospital on 24th April last?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hospital is situated in Hongkew, which is under the control of the Japanese naval landing party. No forcible entry took place, but a Japanese marine having been fatally injured in the accident on 24th April in which Dr. Lillie was unfortunately killed, a Japanese naval detachment proceeded to the hospital and asked to see the survivors at once. While they were there, an altercation appears to have arisen between the officer in charge of the detachment and Assistant-Commissioner A. H. Sansom, a British subject in the employ of the Shanghai Municipal Police, during which Mr. Sansom was struck a blow in the face by the officer in question. His

Majesty's Consul-General has addressed a protest to his Japanese colleague against the assault and similar action has, it is understood, been taken by the Shanghai Municipal Council.

Mr. Bellenger: Is this a British hospital, and if it is, cannot steps be taken to protect those British individuals who are, for various reasons, forced to enter our hospital?

Mr. Butler: The reason why we made a protest was in order to stop incidents like this happening in future.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that his protests have no use whatever, and can he not take definite steps to protect British lives in this hospital and other British places?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may rest assured that we shall do all we can to protect British lives.

Mr. Thurtle: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that all the British Government can do is to make mild protests of this kind?

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister what claims have been made by His Majesty's Government against the Japanese Government for maltreatment of the crew of the steamship '' Sagres ''; and what reply has been received?

Mr. Butler: The full information necessary for the formulation of detailed claims is not yet available. As the Prime Minister stated, however, in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) on 24th May, His Majesty's Government reserve all their rights in respect of compensation.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether this ship has now been released?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British passengers to Hankow are, or were required, to have Japanese landing passes; whether this was done with the consent of the British authorities in China; and whether he will give instructions to His Majesty's diplomatic and naval representatives in China that they must at all times insist on the right of British subjects to unrestricted entry into Hankow?

Mr. Butler: Japanese military passes are at present required by all passengers proceeding to Hankow and other up-river ports, and the British authorities have acquiesced in the issue of these passes in order to enable British subjects to proceed up the River Yangtze. His Majesty's Government do not, however, in principle recognise the right of the Japanese to restrict or control the movements of British subjects in China and His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has been instructed to enter a formal reservation on this point with the Japanese Government.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Why did the Government acquiesce in the granting of these passes?

Mr. Butler: The situation on the Yangtze has not been normal, and we thought it better to acquiesce in order to obtain these facilities while making reservations on the general ground.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Are the passes required for the movement of British warships?

Mr. Thurtle: The right hon. Gentleman says that the British Government do not acquiesce in the principle, but are they not continually acquiescing in the practice?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the continued absence from Danzig of the League Commissioner; and what duties Dr. Burckhardt is now performing?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 25th May. The High Commissioner returned to Danzig on 28th May.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it intended that the residence of the High Commissioner is to be temporary or more permanent than it has been within recent months?

Mr. Butler: I think that in the immediate present the Commissioner intends to return to Geneva.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that Dr, Burckhardt has not gone there on another attempt at mediation?

Mr. Butler: Any attempt at mediation would be beyond the competence of the High Commissioner.

Sir Percy Harris: How is this gentleman paid for his services, who pays his salary and how is he able to come and go as he will, apparently without responsibility?

Mr. Butler: I repudiate the suggestion that the High Commissioner is without responsibility and does not attend to his duties. He has the complete confidence of my Noble Friend.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state in what way, in the future, private British interests and those of His Majesty's Government will be represented in Prague?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 5th June to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Day: Does "representation" mean recognition of German sovereignty over Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: I said that we had got into touch with other Governments, and I cannot go any further at present.

Mr. Day: Has any answer been received from the other Governments?

Mr. Butler: Not yet.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Vatican, relative to a conference for the settlement of outstanding international difficulties and disputes?

Mr. Butler: The position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen) on 15th May.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in any general European settlement, an essential part will be the restoration of liberty and independence to Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: The situation postulated by the hon. Member is entirely hypothetical, and I am obviously not in a position to give any assurance in regard to it.

Mr. Mander: Is it not of the highest importance that it should be made clear at once that no general European settlement could be contemplated which did not make arrangements for the restoration of liberty to these countries that have been recently seized contrary to all the pledges given to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go beyond the answer I have just given.

Mr. Mander: Is it the intention to hold the matter open, and possibly to recognise the seizure of these countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister what is the delay in assessing the cost of the damage to His Majesty's ship "Hunter" and presenting a claim to the Spanish Government in view of the fact that repairs to this ship were completed over six months ago?

Mr. Butler: The cost of the damage to His Majesty's ship "Hunter" has now been assessed and a claim will be presented to the Spanish Government for the sum in question, in accordance with the usual procedure.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether His Majesty's Government have made representations to Signor Mussolini concerning the breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement involved in the leaving of Italian armaments in Spain after the termination of the war;
(2) how many German and Italian troops and military technicians still remain in Spain;
(3)how many Italian aircraft, tanks, and guns have been left in Spain; and whether these arms are now manned by Spanish personnel?

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the number of Italian troops still in Spain; how many Italian aeroplanes have been left in that country; and whether these aeroplanes are manned by Italian pilots?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether there are any Italian aeroplanes and pilots in either Majorca or Iviza?

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the amount of war material, formerly belonging to the Italian and German forces in Spain, which has been sold to General Franco; and in what form has payment for such war material been made?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government have given serious consideration to the issues raised in these questions. I would first remind the House that the Non-intervention Agreement lapsed on 20th April, and that, therefore, there is no provision in any international instrument or undertaking to prevent any Government from now supplying war material to the Spanish Government.
As the House was informed on Monday some 22,000 Italian and 6,000 German troops have now left Spain. These figures represent the great majority of the foreign troops recently serving there. The Italian air forces at Majorca are similarly being reduced; a number of pilots have already left, and the remainder are expected to leave shortly. All Germans connected with the air base in that island have left except two.
Quantities of war material have also been evacuated from Spain, including much aircraft material from Majorca. But a considerable amount of material, of which I cannot give exact figures, has been disposed of to the Spanish Government, including aircraft of Italian origin at Majorca. Arrangements are being made for these to be taken over by Spanish personnel. Full information is not available as to the form in which payment for material transferred is to be made.
The House will recall that the main object of the exchange of Notes constituting Annex XI of the Anglo-Italian Agreement was to ensure against a possibility (as to which fears had been expressed) that at the end of the war the Spanish Government might be induced to afford bases where quantities of war material might remain under Italian military control. During the course of the negotiations preceding the signature of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, mention was made of the possibility of material being sold or given away after the end of the civil war. But it was not against this eventuality that His Majesty's


Government especially desired to guard, and information available shows that the main objective to which I have referred has been achieved with the withdrawal of Italian troops and war material still in Italian hands.
Taking all these circumstances into account, His Majesty's Government do not propose to make representations to the Italian Government unless the situation should be materially altered by any new development.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May we interpret the Prime Minister's answer as meaning that, in the view of the Government, there has been no breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, which provided that all Italian war material should be withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think we must accept that interpretation, that there has been no breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman himself said in this House that there would be a withdrawal both of men and of material, and apparently some arrangement was made prior to the final statement which was made publicly? Is not this really a breach of an undertaking given to this House?

The Prime Minister: The answer which I gave to a question addressed to me, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring, was made in good faith, and I think that the misunderstanding which perhaps occurred was due to my not appreciating what was perhaps in the mind of the hon. Member who asked me the question. What I had in mind was the consideration which I have described in my original answer this afternoon, namely, that we wished to be certain, in making the Anglo-Italian Agreement, that at the end of the war there was not a quantity of war material left in Spain under Italian control. That has been achieved. But it is true, and it is only fair to the Italian Government to make it clear', that, at the time the negotiations were proceeding, mention was made by the Italian Foreign Minister of the possibility that some material might be either sold or given to the Spanish Government. That did not appear to the Government at the time, and it does not appear now, to be of material importance as compared with other considerations.

Mr. Greenwood: May I put it to the Prime Minister that, these considerations having been in the mind of the Government, and having been put by the Italian Government, this House was definitely misled?

The Prime Minister: It was not deliberately misled, at any rate; but it is quite possible that, I having one set of considerations in my mind, and hon. Members having another, there was some misunderstanding.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many Italian and German troops remain, and how much armament; and is it not the duty of the Italian Government, under the agreement for the exchange of military information, to tell us how much armament and how many men remain?

The Prime Minister: With regard to men, I have already explained that the numbers are now comparatively small, and that those who remain are in process of leaving. With regard to war material, I have already explained fully what the situation is.

Mr. Lloyd George: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer will also be applicable to the German and Italian heavy guns which are planted on the Straits of Gibraltar and which would have the harbour of Gibraltar under their control in the event of war?

The Prime Minister: It is quite obvious, I think, that the Spanish Government can now purchase, if they like and if they are able, heavy guns from any country which can supply them, and can mount them where they please.

Mr. Lloyd George: This is not a question of purchase of guns from Germany or from Italy. These are guns which were placed there before the civil war was over, and were placed there in contravention of the agreement which had been entered into by the four Powers who belonged to the Non-intervention Committee. These guns are left there in the emplacements where they were put during the war. I certainly was one of those who understood that the Prime Minister had undertaken to see that all this material was withdrawn. Will he protest against the non-withdrawal of these guns, which menace our position in the Straits of Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: I must point out that the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to me is not the question which was on the Paper and which I have answered. It relates to an entirely different set of circumstances. If he will be good enough to put his question down, I will give him an answer.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: The Prime Minister has said that it does not seem to him to be a matter of vital importance to this country that all this material should be left behind in Spain. Is he quite certain that the French Government take the same view?

The Prime Minister: I have no reason to suppose that they do not.

Mr. Greenwood: Having now consented to this sale, or gift, of arms to Spain, will the Prime Minister make inquiries, and inform the House subsequently as to what amount of war material is now being given to Franco's Government, or sold to them?

The Prime Minister: I have no right to ask the Spanish Government such a question, but I will consider it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can have only one question at a time.

Mr. Pritt: Arising out of the statement that the Spanish Government are free to maintain any heavy artillery around Gibraltar, is it not a fact that the Spanish Government are bound by treaty not to fortify the heights around Gibraltar, and has not every Spanish Government until this one kept that treaty?

The Prime Minister: That is not the question that was on the Paper. If a question is put to me on the subject, I will give a complete answer.

Mr. Benn: Has the Prime Minister not said that the Spanish Government have the right to mount guns around Gibraltar, whereas we understood that there was this treaty?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Percy Harris.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom to give those Members who place questions on the Order

Paper the first opportunity of asking supplementaries arising out of those questions?

Mr. Magnay: Further to that point of Order. Is the House to understand that only those on the opposite side of the House are allowed to put supplementaries?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not observe that the hon. Member was one of those whose questions were being answered at the same time. Under the circumstances if he desires to put a supplementary which has not already been put, I will allow him to do so.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that the Government have no information as to how or what payment was made for this war material, do they consider that allegiance to the Italian Government is the form of payment that General Franco is making? It is a very important question, and may I ask if that is the opinion of the Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any recent information as to the extent to which Ceuta has been fortified; what are the calibre and nationality of the guns; and whether any other part of the adjacent coast has been fortified?

Mr. Butler: Considerable information is in the possession of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the fortification of Ceuta and certain adjacent parts of the coast, the extent of which it would not be in the public interest to divulge. The calibre and country of origin of the guns are various.

Mr. Lloyd George: When I put a question on this point just now, I was told that that was not the question on the Paper. I agree. But here is the very point being raised by my hon. Friend. I ask again whether these guns, having been put there during the time the Non intervention Agreement was in force, ought to have been returned to Germany and Italy, in accordance with the arrangement made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Italy?

Mr. Butler: I quite appreciate the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Lloyd George: It is not only my anxiety, but the anxiety of the whole country.

Mr. Butler: I agree that the anxiety is natural, but I think that the special circumstances which arise there have to be taken into consideration. I have said that the countries of origin of the guns are various.

Sir P. Harris: Is it not a fact that many of these big guns were sent to Ceuta in direct contravention of the Non-intervention Agreement, and, that being so, have we not a special status to protest about their being there?

Mr. Butler: The Non-intervention Agreement has now lapsed. We are dealing here with an area distinct from the Spanish mainland, and with problems of its own.

Sir A. Sinclair: Is this distinction which the right hon. Gentleman seems to draw between the Spanish mainland and the Spanish territories to be found in the Anglo-Italian Agreement? Does not the Agreement say that all troops and material are to be withdrawn from all Spanish territories?

Mr. Butler: There are considerations somewhat more complicated than the right hon. Gentleman makes out. I have not the exact date of the mounting of these guns in this particular place, and I do not draw any distinction over the Non-intervention Agreement between Ceuta and the Spanish mainland.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the way in which General Franco is carrying out the assurance given by him to His Majesty's Government, on 22nd February, to the effect that no special tribunals would be set up to try political opponents, nor would the death penalty be enforced for actions which were not recognised as crimes in legislation in force before July, 1936?

Mr. Butler: Special tribunals have been set up to try cases referred to them under the Law of Political Responsibilities, but the terms of the assurance given are ambiguous and do not exclude the possibility of such tribunals being set up. My noble Friend awaits a further report from His Majesty's Ambassador as to

how the terms of the law are being interpreted. As far as Madrid is concerned, only convicted murderers have been sentenced to death, and only 10 sentences had, up to the end of April, been carried out.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not a fact that in a telegram sent to the Prime Minister on, I think, 22nd February, an assurance was specifically given that no special tribunals would be set up? Further, is the Under-Secretary aware that I have the names of far more than 10 people who have been shot— journalists, school teachers and others— for crimes which do not include murder?

Mr. Butler: On the subject of special tribunals, our own legal opinion shows us that the assurance given is somewhat ambiguous. That is why my noble Friend called for a further report from our Ambassador to the Spanish Government. We are awaiting the report as to how the terms of the law are being interpreted. When we receive such a report I shall be able to give more details.

Mr. Neil Maclean: If these matters are, as the Under-Secretary states, ambiguous, why do not the Government do something to have the ambiguity cleared up?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member had listened to the answer he would have realised that that is precisely what we are doing. My noble Friend is asking for further information. I would like to add that our information is that the courts are proceeding with moderation.

Mr. W. Roberts: Are the assurances which were given of any value whatever?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent admissions by official German and Italian speakers as to the extent of their intervention in the Spanish war and as to the early date at which such intervention began, and in view of the many denials of all knowledge of such intervention, he will consider reorganising the sources of information of the British Government?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government were well aware, and have often stated, that intervention in the Spanish war was, unfortunately, taking place on both sides.

Mr. Roberts: On many occasions, to questions asked by myself and other hon. Members, the Government have given the answer that they had no knowledge of such intervention. In view of that, does the matter not call for some further consideration?

Mr. Assheton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole country is profoundly grateful to the Government for keeping us out of the Spanish War?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any information from the League of Nations with regard to Spain's continuance or otherwise of membership of the League?

Mr. Butler: The Secretary-General of the League of Nations communicated to the Members of the League on 9th May a telegram from the Spanish Government notifying the withdrawal of Spain from the League in accordance with Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.

Mr. Davidson: Do the Government consider this withdrawal a strengthening of the peace forces of the world, and were the Government aware of this withdrawal when they sent our Ambassador to the victory parade in Madrid.

Mr. Butler: I regard it as my duty to answer the question on the Paper, and I have given the hon. Member and the House a full answer. I cannot undertake to widen the nature of the answer.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister what representations have been made recently to General Franco with regard to His Majesty's Government's claims for compensation for the loss of British lives and British ships during the Spanish civil war?

Mr. Butler: These claims are being filed and examined by the Foreign Office, and those found valid will be presented to the Spanish Government as soon as possible in accordance with the normal procedure.

Mr. Davidson: I would have thought that the Prime Minister would have replied to this question, which is of major importance to the British people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Davidson: Will the Government place a time limit on the settlement of these compensation claims, in view of the fact that the Government were entirely responsible for the murder of these British seamen?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state the result of the examination of the most recent Russian note respecting a Russo-Franco-British alliance?

The Prime Minister: For reasons which the House will appreciate, it has not been possible to give day-to-day information as to the progress of the negotiations for an agreement between Great Britain, France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A stage has, however, now been reached which enables me to supplement the statement which I made on 24th May.
It appears from the last exchange of views with the Soviet Government that there is general agreement as to the main objects to be attained. His Majesty's Government have, I think, been able to satisfy the Soviet Government that they are, in fact, prepared to conclude an agreement on the basis of full reciprocity. They have also made it clear that they are ready, immediately and without any reserve, to join with the French Government in giving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics full military support in the event of any act of aggression against her involving her in hostilities with a European Power. It is not intended that the military support which the three Powers would agree to extend to one another should be confined to a case of actual aggression upon their own territory. It is possible to imagine various cases in which any one of the three Governments might feel that its security was indirectly menaced by the action of another European Power. These cases have been reviewed in detail, and I hope that it may be possible now to suggest a formula acceptable to the three Governments which, while having regard to the rights and interests of other States, will assure co-operation between those Powers in resistance to aggression.
There remain one or two difficulties to be resolved, in particular the position of


certain States, which do not want to receive a guarantee on the ground that it would compromise the strict neutrality which they desire to preserve. It is manifestly impossible to impose a guarantee on States which do not desire it, but I hope that some means may be found by which this difficulty, and any others which may arise in the adjustment of the general points on which there is now no difference between the three Governments, shall not stand in the way of giving the greatest effect to the principle of mutual support against aggression.
In order to accelerate the negotiations, it has been decided to send a representative of the Foreign Office to Moscow to convey to His Majesty's Ambassador there full information as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government on all outstanding points. I hope that by this method it will be possible more rapidly to complete the discussion that is still necessary to harmonise the views of the three Governments and so to reach final agreement.

Mr. Adams: Might I be allowed to thank the Prime Minister for that full statement and also to ask him whether it is not true to say that the final success of these negotiations will make defeat completely impossible and war itself unlikely?

Mr. Greenwood: Will the Prime Minister explain who is likely to go to Moscow and whether that visit will hinder the rapid conclusion of agreement on the principles of the treaty; whether the principles of the treaty cannot be settled by the Governments and only subsidiary matters left to be settled in Moscow?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say at the present time who will be the representative of the Foreign Office, because that is still under consideration.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Could not it be a Minister?

The Prime Minister: The object of sending a representative of the Foreign Office to Moscow is to facilitate and accelerate the negotiations, and not to delay them. I have every hope that that may be the result.

Mr. Greenwood: Is it not possible that a visit to Moscow might be interpreted as a delaying operation against the full completion of the treaty? While the principle might be agreed to now, could not the details be settled afterwards?

The Prime Minister: We are not in a position actually to conclude a treaty now, because of the points I have mentioned which are still to be resolved. It is in the hope of resolving them rapidly that this visit is to take place.

Mr. V. Adams: Can the Prime Minister say when the mission will go to Moscow?

The Prime Minister: At once.

Mr. Mander: Will the proposed agreement include an arangement for immediate staff conversations?

The Prime Minister: I think we had better wait until we reach an agreement.

Mr. Sandys: Is the Prime Minister aware that his hopeful statement will be received as evidence of the Government's determination to reach this agreement as quickly as possible?

Mr. Cocks: Will the representative be a member of the Government, or a civil servant?

The Prime Minister: A civil servant.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the Anglo-Franco-Russian negotiations, whether His Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Governments of the Baltic indicating their wish to be guaranteed, or, on the contrary, not to be guaranteed?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have received several communications from the Finnish, Estonian and Latvian Governments indicating that, in view of their intention to maintain strict neutrality, they did not wish to receive a guarantee as a result of the present negotiations between Great Britain, France and Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY STAFF CONTACTS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister what steps are contemplated to further co-operation for production, intelligence, and operational plans with the air administration of the Soviet Union?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what staff military conversations have taken place or are contemplated, with either Poland, Rumania, Greece, Turkey or Russia?

The Prime Minister: The normal method of maintaining staff contacts with foreign countries through the channel of Service attaches has been supplemented in certain instances in recent months. It is contemplated that this procedure will be followed in other cases, but it would not be in the public interest to give any detailed particulars.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that the method of co-operation by means of Service attaches with their limited ability to co-operate with these foreign consuls is likely to prove as effective as the German and Italian method of reciprocal co-operation by hundreds of officers of all arms of the Forces? Would it not at least be common prudence to begin to initiate measures for co-operation for production with the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can add anything to the answer that I have already given.

Mr. Benn: Does the answer mean that what we understand to be the demand of Russia for combined staff talks has been rejected by the Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to make any such suggestion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We had better get on with the other questions. There are other hon. Members who have questions on the Paper.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. With very great respect to you, Sir, I wish to submit that it has been the invariable practice for Members who have put a question on the Paper to be allowed to put two supplementary questions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. These matters are entirely in the discretion of the Chair and the hon. Member is scarcely behaving in a way to get extra indulgence from the Chair.

Mr. Garro Jones: I am not asking for it, and I never expect it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member does not accept my instruction and direction, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. While I have no intention of claiming any indulgence from the Chair, I certainly have every intention of insisting upon such rights as I do possess, and one of those rights is to put and to complete a point of Order to the Chair. And I now desire to put a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Sir, whether you rule that Members who have questions upon the Paper are not entitled to put supplementary questions not by way of any indulgence from the Chair, but as a right established by long practice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I have ruled that the matter is entirely in the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Garro Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I rule that that matter is in the discretion of the Chair. In this case, owing to the importance of some of the earlier questions, the later questions on the Order Paper have been very much delayed. It is my intention to try my best to give opportunities for other hon. Members to put their questions. I consider that I have done all that is necessary.

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to give notice that I shall put upon the Order Paper a Motion drawing attention to the Ruling that you have just given as to the right of Members to put supplementary questions.

Mr. Deputy-Speakers: The hon. Member need not give notice of that; he is entitled to put such a motion on the Order Paper at any time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

SOUTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the United Kingdom Post Office anticipate paying the German and French airlines during 1939, in respect of mails conveyed over the South Atlantic, the sum of £ 118,000; and whether he anticipates a British service over this route before 1943?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the estimate to which my hon. Friend refers. In regard to the second part of the question, the provision


of the necessary ground organisation (including construction of aerodromes and flying boat bases) is now being undertaken, but it is not proposed to institute a regular service until suitable British aircraft are available and a preliminary programme of experimental flights has been carried out. I am hopeful that these conditions will be satisfied so as to enable a regular service to commence by 1943.

PUBLIC CORPORATION.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he proposes to introduce legislation with regard to the amalgamation of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, this session, in view of the opposition to the price offered for the shares?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The legislation to provide for the setting up of the proposed Public Corporation will be introduced during the next few days.

CO-ORDINATION.

Wing-Commander Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take the opportunity afforded by the merger of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, to bring about closer co-ordination between the interests concerned in the development of new types of civil aircraft for commercial purposes?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Harold Brown last February with the following terms of reference:
To consider, with the proposed merger of Imperial Airways and British Airways in view, how best to improve co-ordination between aircraft constructors, air line operators and the Air Ministry in the production of civil air lines, and how development work can best be initiated, controlled and— within approved limits— financed.
The Committee have now reported and I have arranged for their report to be published very shortly as a White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AIR GUARD.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air what reports he has received from the inspector of civil flying clubs on the standard of flying in Civil Air Guard units; and whether they have been satisfactory?

Captain Balfour: The Inspector of Civil Flying Clubs took up his duties on 1st May and is now engaged on visiting light aeroplane clubs Up to date he has rendered reports on seven clubs. The reports are generally satisfactory and indicate that the training is being given efficiently.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the numbers of persons, male and female, who have made application to join the Civil Air Guard, and the average contribution per person made from public funds to provide the facilities for training of these applicants?

Captain Balfour: 8,636 men and 1,052 women have been enrolled in the Civil Air Guard. The average amount expended in subsidy to date on this membership is £ 13 14s. per person.

Mr. Day: Can we be informed whether any expenses are allowed to the Civil Air Guard other than their travelling expenses and uniforms?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. The limit of liabilty on public funds is contained in the agreement with the light aeroplane clubs, which provides for grants in respect of members trained to A licence standard varying with the type of aircraft and for other flying, thus providing flying facilties for members of the Air Guard at very low hourly rates.

Mr. Day: Does that include uniforms?

Captain Balfour: No, it does not.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT WORKERS.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the concern that exists among sections of aircraft workers, and, in particular, at the Austin shadow factory, due to the continual cutting of time on jobs, especially the wing spar section, which leaves the men barely sufficient time to do the work efficiently; and what action he proposes to take to secure that speeding-up does not mean impaired workmanship and injustice to the workmen?

Sir K. Wood: No representations on this matter have been received at the Air Ministry and I am informed that the management of the factory concerned


have not been approached in regard to the time allowances for the work referred to. Appropriate procedure exists for the examination of such questions and I am sure that any complaints will be given due consideration. In reply to the second part of the question, all work is subject to the normal standards of Air Ministry inspection and I am informed that the standards of workmanship and material at the Austin factory are regarded as entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Banfield: Will the Minister please make some further inquiry into this matter; and is he aware that there is no greater cause for discontent, and eventually for stoppages of work, than this continual cutting of piece rates? I put it to the Minister that, in the interests of efficiency, it is really a very serious matter if sufficient time is not given to the men to complete their jobs?

Sir K. Wood: That may very well be so, and I shall be glad to see any steps taken to obtain full efficiency in the matter. The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will appreciate that neither the Ministry nor the manufacturers have been approached in this matter.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to be as careful of the interests of these aircraft workers as he is prepared to be of the interests of the shareholders?

DISPLAY, CASTLE BROMWICH.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Air the circumstances in which, at the air display on 20th May, at Castle Bromwich, the Press and photographers were excluded from the official reserved section and given no proper opportunities of reporting the proceedings?

Sir K. Wood: Revised Press arrangements were introduced locally at Castle Bromwich for the Empire Air Day display this year which I understand did not prove satisfactory. I very much regret any inconvenience that may have been caused to the Press, whose good will and co-operation are so readily given and so important to my Department, and I am taking steps to ensure that, on future occasions, adequate facilities will be provided at all stations participating in the display.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great resentment that was felt by the journalists concerned and that an official protest was sent by the local branch of the National Union of Journalists, and will he take steps to obviate these difficulties in future?

Sir K. Wood: I regret this, and, in fact, I am in communication with my correspondents.

Mr. Gallacher: The Germans have got all the information.

Contracts.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that all contracts for aircraft are let to a circle of 16 firms who themselves, in agreement with the Air Ministry, place sub-contracts for components; and whether he is satisfied that this arrangement guards the best interests of the public?

Sir K. Wood: At the present time, the number of firms holding separate contracts for the supply of complete aircraft for Royal Air Force purposes is approximately double the number suggested by the hon. Member. In the interests of design and efficiency, it is essential that each firm should be responsible for its own production including arrangements for the widespread sub-contracting which is required by Air Ministry policy. I am satisfied that this procedure is in the public interest.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister indicate the form of control with which he is satisfied under which these sub-contractors are carrying out the work?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I have answered the question on the Paper, and if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on policy generally I will give him an answer. This question related to 16 firms, who, in fact, place sub-contracts.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Has the number of firms been recently increased, and, if so, by how many?

Sir K. Wood: There has been an increase in the last 12 months.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what control the Ministry has over the sub-contracting firms to the original firms which hold the contract and can he say whether he has any power of supervising their profit?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the revision of the McLintock agreement has now been completed and when that revised agreement will be available for the information of Members of this House?

Sir K. Wood: As I informed the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Mr. Day) on 26th May, negotiations in this matter are proceeding.

Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when these negotiations will be completed?

Sir K. Wood: I am hoping that they will soon be completed.

DEBDEN STATION (OFFICERS' DANCE).

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the officers of the Debden aerodrome, in promoting a dance, have offered to provide lady visitors with overnight accommodation, and whether the accommodation offered was in official quarters; and what are the general regulations on the subject?

Sir K. Wood: The officers at the Royal Air Force Station, Debden, gave a dance on 12th May, and owing to the difficulty of finding hotel accommodation in the neighbourhood, arranged, with the approval of the group captain commanding the station, for a certain number of ladies to be accommodated after the dance in a temporary hutment which, though formerly used for officers' quarters, had been vacated on the completion of a permanent building. The regulations on the subject provide that ladies are not to be admitted to officers' quarters, and whilst there was no formal breach of the regulations, instructions have been issued that such arrangements should not be made in future.

Mr. Morgan: While not intending to disturb the quality indicated in the Minister's answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can have an assurance that there was justification in the neighbourhood for a certain amount of uneasiness?

Sir K. Wood: I think the hon. Member is unduly suspicious in the matter. I have had a report from one of our senior

officers, who had the pleasure of attending the dance, and he reports that it was conducted with complete decorum and in a manner well in keeping with the accepted traditions of a function held in an officers' mess.

DEPOT CONSTRUCTION, STAFFORD (LABOURERS).

Mr. Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men are employed as labourers by the contractors to his Department upon the construction of a Royal Air Force depot at Stafford; how many of these men are of English nationality; and how many of these have been engaged through employment exchanges?

Sir K, Wood: I understand that 33 labourers are employed on the construction of this depot. Eleven are English, of whom eight were engaged through the employment exchanges. The remainder are Irish labourers, all of whom, I am informed, have worked with the firm for 10 years or more.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable public indignation does exist as regards the very limited number of English labourers employed, and will he consult with the Minister of Labour and see whether some scheme can be devised whereby the number of Irishmen employed may be limited?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. It was announced a few days ago that the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that fair wages are paid to these men?

PROPOSED STEEL WORKS, EDALE.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any further statement to make about the proposed steelworks at Edale, in the Peak district?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the firm concerned is engaged in seeking an alternative site.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his successful intervention in this matter will give very great satisfaction throughout the country?

TRINIDAD.

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a memorandum from the Trinidad Workers United Front Committee embodying proposals for a reform of the island's constitution; and what action he has taken, or proposes to take, with regard to the matter?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have recently received a memorandum from the Trinidad Workers United Front Committee, but I have not yet been able to consider it in detail. In any case I should wish to await the Report of the West India Royal Commission before envisaging any revision of the constitution of Trinidad.

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a resolution from the workers of Trinidad asking for the removal from office of the Attorney-General; whether he has made inquiries as to the justification for this request; and what decision he has reached on the matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not received any such resolution.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE (MALAYAN CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. Annesley Somerville: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount of the gifts from Malaya towards the cost of Imperial Defence during the past 20 years?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Free gifts from Malaya towards the cost of Empire Defence during the last 20 years amount to more than £ 7,250,000. In addition, the expenditure borne over the same period by the Malayan Governments on the local forces including His Majesty's Forces in the peninsula amount to about £ 15,000,000.

PALESTINE.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what instructions have been issued to the High Commissioner in Palestine regarding the methods to be adopted for preventing illegal immigration into Palestine and

whether the High Commissioner is empowered to order ships carrying refugees to leave Palestinian waters without reference to the state of affairs prevailing on board or the fact that no alternative destination may be available for the ship?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Precise instructions have not been issued to the High Commissioner on this subject. He has, however, with my approval, taken certain additional powers by Ordinance for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, and I am placing a copy of the Ordinance in question in the Library of the House. With regard to the second part of the question, the High Commissioner no doubt takes into consideration the state of affairs prevailing on board these ships, and he informed me in April that they would be provisioned, where necessary, by the Palestine Government.

Mr. Crossley: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that any illegal immigrants who find their way into the country will be counted against the legal quota of immigrants?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

SITUATION.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the conditions in Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have nothing to add to the general description of the situation in Palestine which I gave to the hon. Member on 5th June.

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in the event of the Permanent Mandates Commission reporting that the White Paper dealing with Palestine is inconsistent with the mandate, an opportunity will be afforded this House for a further discussion of the White Paper and the Report of the Commission before asking the Council of the League of Nations to consider it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The business before the Permanent Mandates Commission at their session this month will be the examination of the annual reports on Mandated Territories, and it is understood that in the course of their


examination of the annual report on Palestine and Transjordan they are likely to take an opportunity of discussing Command Paper No. 6019, copies of which have been forwarded to Geneva. If the Commission have any comments to offer on it, these will be embodied in their report to be laid before the Council of the League next September, At the meeting of the Council a representative of His Majesty's Government will be in a position to afford any information which the Council may require regarding the policy set out in the Command Paper which has already been approved by the House. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the policy is in conformity with their obligations under the mandate, and will explain their view, if required, to the Council.

Mr. Williams: In view of the small majority in this House and the large number of absentees when the White Paper was debated, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, should the Mandates Commission regard the policy embodied in the White Paper as being inconsistent with the mandate, it is not fair to expect that this House should be given an opportunity of discussing the observations of the Mandates Commission before the matter goes to the League of Nations?

The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question, and I think we had better wait until the circumstances arise.

Mr. Williams: May we have an assurance that before a decision is finally taken on this hypothetical matter, he will consider the advisability of the House discussing it?

The Prime Minister: That is the same hypothetical question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister undertake that the policy will not be put into effect until it has been approved by the Council of the League, which is the supreme authority?

Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether it is within the competence of the Mandates Commission to decide whether the proposals are legal or not?

The Prime Minister: The only provision on such a matter is in Article 26 of the Palestine Mandate, where it is laid down that if any dispute should arise between

the Mandatory Power and another member of the League of Nations as to the interpretation of the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice.

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether it is not the case that certain members of the Cabinet are opposed to the Government's policy on Palestine?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there not also an obligation in Article 22, under which the Mandates Commission has to advise the Council of the League on the observance of the mandate in order that the Council may make a final decision?

The Prime Minister: I think that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

CYPRUS.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the £ 64,000 earmarked for irrigation schemes in Cyprus has already been spent; and how much does he expect to have expended by the end of the first year of the operations?

Mr. M. MacDonald: £ 4,110 had been spent up to the end of May and it is expected that about £ 13,350 will have been spent by the end of the year. This expenditure is in addition to the cost of the Water Engineer's investigations, on which £ 11,200 had been spent up to the end of March and met from the grant of £ 30,000 made from the Colonial Development Fund.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: As irrigation is absolutely essential, can anything be done to hurry things up? This is a very small sum, £ 64,000, and if it is going to help in putting the island right, surely steps might be taken to hurry things up.

Mr. MacDonald: They are getting on with the work as quickly as they possibly can. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the sum of £ 64,000 was for a four years' programme.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that four years is a long period in which to spend a miserable £ 64,000?

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether dowsers are being employed in the search for water in Cyprus?

Mr. MacDonald: No dowsers are employed by the Cyprus Government, but I understand that some local diviners are employed privately.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the result of this divining?

Mr. MacDonald: Not without notice.

Mr. Maxton: What is the difference between a dowser and a diviner?

Mr. MacDonald: I must have notice of that question.

ARMAMENT PROUDCTION (LIMITATION OF PROFITS).

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister when legislation will be introduced to deal with the limitation of the profits of firms engaged in armament production; and to provide that in the event of war steps will be taken to penalise profiteering and prevent additions to individual fortunes cut of war-created wealth, as embodied in the resolution on compulsory military training passed by this House on 27th April, 1939?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the matter to which he refers is under consideration, and it is hoped to make a statement on the subject next week. As regards the second part of the question, I would point out to the hon. Member that the Resolution of 27th April did not contemplate legislation in peace time on the subject to which he refers.

Mr. Thorne: Are the Government considering the possibility of having a Government auditor upon the job in the case of these firms?

CIVIL DEFENCE (NORTH-EAST COAST).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are being made for the defence of the North-East Coast against air raids or bombardment in the event of war?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): It would not be in the public interest to disclose the character or extent of preparations for the defence of particular localities.

Mr. Stewart: While it may not be in the public interest to give this information, is it not a matter of interest to those who are domiciled on this coastline to know that something is being done in the event of war? Are the Government doing anything to afford protection to these people against air raids or against bombardment from the sea?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member may rest assured that appropriate steps are being taken and dispositions made according to the circumstances of each case.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that it is not desirable to make a statement on the protection that is being provided because in many cases no protection is being provided?

Mr. Morrison: That is not the case.

DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION).

Mr. Leach: asked the Paymaster-General as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether, in view of the statement in the Medical Research Council's Report, Special Report Series, No. 195, regarding an anti-diphtheria campaign in Quebec in which there was mass-inoculation of all groups of children below the age of 10 years, and the statement in the report of the Medical Research Council for the year 1937-38, that prophylaxis against diphtheria was not used in the city of Quebec, he will ask the council to inquire in which years prophylaxis against diphtheria was used in that city?

The Paymaster-General (Earl Winter-ton): The statement by the authors of Special Report No. 195 refers to an immunisation campaign during the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 in certain districts of the province of Quebec. The statement by the Medical Research Council in their recent Annual Report refers explicitly to the year 1936 and to the city of Quebec. The two statements thus refer to different areas at different times. In the case of the city of Quebec, immunisation as a general measure had not been adopted up to and including 1936,


the year to which the particular statement referred, but more recent information is being sought.

ST. HELENA (COTTAGE HOMESTEADS).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the extension of the scheme for providing small holdings in St. Helena has been approved; and, if so, how many holdings are to be provided?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Following discussion with my agricultural adviser and a. member of my Department during their recent visit to St. Helena, the Governor has now recommended the construction of additional cottage homesteads in country districts. He has submitted an interim application for assistance from the Colonial Development Fund to enable the construction of two additional cottages in country areas and two blocks of three cottages in Jamestown to be begun so as to keep the building staff of the Public Works Department fully occupied pending my consideration of his general proposals. This interim application will be referred to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee with my full support.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is this all that the Government propose to do to deal with the great distress which exists in this Colony?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. This is an interim proposal pending the consideration of a much larger scheme.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a distinguished visitor is shortly to be expected in St. Helena?

COLLIERY ACCIDENT, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Crossley: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make on the disaster which occurred yesterday at the Astley Green Colliery, Lancashire.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I very much regret to have to

inform the House that as the result of an explosion which occurred in the Crumbouke Seam at Astley Green Colliery at about 1 p.m. yesterday five persons, including the manager, lost their lives and eight others were injured. The cause of the explosion is not yet known, and further investigation will not at present be practicable because owing to the occurrence of other explosions during the afternoon and the risk of further loss of life it became necessary to seal off the workings near the pit bottom. This work has been in progress since yesterday evening, the principal stoppings have been completed and work on the remainder is reported to be proceeding satisfactorily.
I know the House will desire to join with me in expressing the deep sympathy we all feel for the relatives and friends of those who have been killed and the hope that the injured may make a speedy recovery.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Were the workmen's representatives consulted before sealing up the affected area?

Mr. Lloyd: It is part of the instructions to the inspectors to do so, and I have seen reports that it was done, but I will seek confirmation.

Mr. George Hall: Will an inquiry be set up into the case?

Mr. Lloyd: There will be the usual inquiries by the inspectorate.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of the Commons, namely: That it is desirable that the Water Undertakings Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[8TH ALLOTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1939.

Class II.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 122,923, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies." — (Note. — £ 61,000 has been voted on account.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that there are three Votes and that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss them together.

3.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Before we separated for the Whitsuntide Recess Mr. Speaker addressed to us some very effective words on the virtue of short speeches. We were unanimously agreed that he was as wise as he was witty, and I wish that I could express my personal appreciation of Mr. Speaker's sound judgment by speaking quite briefly this afternoon. But I am afraid that it would be impossible in a quarter of an hour to give anything but the scantiest sketch of the administration of our Colonial Empire, which is composed of some 50 different territories distributed all over the earth and inhabited by 60,000,000 people of different races and different civilisations. Therefore, I must ask the indulgence of the Committee if I trespass for a rather longer period on their time, and I hope the Committee will not grudge the time. For British democracy has no greater responsibility than the government of this vast non-self-governing Empire overseas.
We are accustomed to speak with pride of our capacity and our achievement in Imperial Government. Certainly, we have had a triumphant success in our rule of the Dominions. We guided their

affairs until our government reached the glorious climax of being able to extinguish itself. The Dominions have each become nations on their own; their peoples are the undisputed masters of their own destinies, although they remain associated with us under the British Crown. Under our influence, the peoples of India and Burma have advanced far along the same constitutional road, and without doubt the evolution of the British Commonwealth of free nations is one of the happiest and wisest and most beneficent political achievements of all time.
Are we going to be equally justified in our government of the Colonial Empire? The task is one of a rather different quality. In some ways it is a mistake to speak of the Colonial Empire collectively, giving to a casual listener the impression that it is a collection of countries all of which have reached the same stage of development and all of which present a set of uniform problems. In fact, the Colonial Empire is filled with every kind of variety. Some of its territories shiver near the borders of the Antarctic, while others swelter on the very Equator itself. Some of its territories are mere strips of desert across which roam nomad tribesmen. Some of them are sparsely populated rocks or fleets of coral islands set in the middle of the ocean, while others are large expanses of rich tropical country inhabited by teeming populations. The peoples of these lands are as various as their situations. Some of them still remain close to utterly primitive ways of life, while others are the proud inheritors of ancient and noble cultures. In some territories peoples of different race and different civilisation meet and mix, and it is perhaps in those territories that our problems are most difficult. But in all of them, we are still to a greater or less degree the trustees, the guardians, the tutors, of these various peoples, and I repeat that the British people, who have thrust upon them so many great responsibilities in world affairs, have no more important responsibility than that of governing the Colonial Empire. It is a matter of which the whole of the people of this country should be conscious. The voters in this democracy are ultimately responsible for the good government of the Colonies.
The House of Commons, containing the representatives of the people, has a particular responsibility. I would like,


if I may, as the Colonial Secretary who for the time being is closely in touch with the day-to-day administration of the Colonies, to pay a tribute not only to the constant interest but the great helpfulness of hon. Members in every part of the House in this great Imperial task. I have heard some people ask whether a democracy is capable of governing a vast overseas Empire. It seems to me that the critics of democracy are wrong in that respect, as they are in many others. Of course, it would be impossible for a committee of Parliament to conduct the day-to-day administration of the Colonies, but we have other methods peculiar to democracy by which hon. Members can keep a constant eye on our administration and by which they play a part in the making and guiding of policy. For instance, there is the device of interrogating the Executive, of questioning Ministers. I am in the dock here every Wednesday afternoon. I should like to say without hesitation that this Question Time is immensely valuable. The Colonial Empire is large. It is not possible for a Secretary of State to have his eye fixed upon every part of it all the time. Moreover hon. Members will agree that the Secretary of State himself is fallible, and it is not once or twice, but on various occasions, that I have had my attention drawn to mistakes that we were making, or were on the point of making, in this "or that part of the Colonial Empire, first by a question put down in the House. That applies to questions put down both by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and hon. Members on this side of the House. I believe that hon. Members in all parties share equally in the desire that the British people's reputation as Colonial administrators should stand high. I believe that in Colonial policy there is on most things agreement in principle between us, and that the field of Colonial policy is generally one on which a spirit of genuine co-operation should animate our labours.
Although the ultimate responsibility for Colonial policy rests with us in London, a great deal of discretion and a great deal of responsibility must necessarily rest with our administrators overseas, with the men on the spot, with those who are our chief advisers on local affairs and who have to deal with situations in the Colonies as they arise. The longer I stay

at the Colonial Office, the more impressed I am with the fact that success, or lack of success, depends in a very large degree on the quality of our Governors and our Colonial Secretaries, our District Officers, and all the members of our Colonial Service in the Colonies themselves. We have good men at present, and one of the things which gives me most satisfaction, as I sit in the Colonial Office, is to see the constant stream of able and keen young men who are now being recruited into our Colonial Service. I am confident that they will maintain the highest traditions of Colonial administration.
There is another point of a general nature concerning administration. It is highly desirable that there should be regular contact between the men on the spot and the problems on the spot, and members of our Colonial Office at home, and during the last year we have expanded a great deal the policy of officers from the Colonial Office visiting various parts of the Colonial Empire. But, in addition to these tours by numerous of my advisers, the past 12 months have been noteworthy for the completion of three other journeys which are producing results of especial value. First, Lord Hailey and those who have been cooperating with him have completed their unique and immense work in compiling "An African Survey." The problems presented by the meeting of different races and different civilisations in Africa are as important as any human problems that exist to-day. If we start now on wrong solutions to these problems we are setting our feet on a road which will lead inevitably to a whole continent of un-happiness. If we start now on right solutions to the problems we shall gain more and more, as time goes on, the priceless boon of good relations between the black and the white races of mankind. Lord Hailey's "African Survey" throws a flood of light on these problems. The numerous proposals and suggestions are being actively considered, some of them are already being acted upon, by our African Governments, and here in London we are concerning ourselves particularly with an examination of the ways by which his main proposal for the developing and co-ordinating of research might be carried out.

Mr. Maxton: Will the whole content of the Hailey Report, which I understand was not the work of the Colonial Office, be a subject for discussion on this Supply Vote? I am not putting a point of Order. I do not pretend to be word perfect, but I have made a considerable study of the report and I should like to give the Committee the benefit of that study.

The Chairman: Only that part of the report which comes under this particular Vote would be in order. I admit that I have not read the report myself.

Mr. MacDonald: I am sorry if I tended to lead Members astray, but I felt that it was not only appropriate but proper that the Secretary of State should take this opportunity of expressing our deep appreciation of the work of Lord Hailey and his colleagues. [An HON. MEMBER: "And those who sent them out."] We have already expressed to those who provided the wherewithal for this immensely valuable piece of work our deep appreciation of their great contribution. The second journey which has been completed this year, and which is of great importance, is that of the Royal Commission which, under Lord Bledisloe's chairmanship, and with Members of this House upon it, visited the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. They have completed a valuable study of the situation in the three territories, and they have made a series of recommendations which would affect vitally the future of those countries. I am not yet in a position to state the attitude of the Government towards those recommendations. In the first place, I have been anxious to get from the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland a report on the views of the administrations and the peoples of their territories on the recommendations which have been made, and I expect this report from the Governors in the comparatively near future. In the second place, we are expecting that Mr. Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, will pay a visit to London in the near future when we shall discuss with him also the large questions that are involved.
The third journey of conspicuous importance which has been made this year is that of the Royal Commission which visited the West Indies under the chairmanship of Lord Moyne. The members of the Commission have now returned
from their wide tour through the Spanish Main, but they are still hearing evidence in London, and we look forward to receiving their report later in the year. Members of this House also served upon that Royal Commission. I am certain the Committee would wish me to say that it was with deep sorrow that all of us heard that one of our own colleagues, the late Mr. Morgan Jones, who took a very keen part in the Debate last year, died in the midst of his tireless and valuable services as a member of that Commission.
I myself have added to the literature which Members receive on these subjects by following my predecessor's excellent initiative and publishing a statement on the affairs of the Colonial Empire during the past year. Perhaps, as the author of this new book, I might say I am not entirely satisfied as to its form. It is a little bit awkward, for instance, that we should deal with some matters under the headings of subjects and others under the heading of territories, but it is a little difficult to see what alternative plan we can adopt. However, the statement is intended primarily as an aid to Members of Parliament, and they will be the best judges of the ways in which the statement might be made more useful to them. I shall welcome criticisms or suggestions about the form or the matter of this statement and if Members will let me have their suggestions, as they say in the B.B.C., at the Colonial Office, Downing Street, S.W.I, I will give very careful consideration to them in connection with the preparation of the statement next year.
I have spoken of the variety of the Colonies and Protectorates, and the diversity of their people, and of the many different stages of their development. But it is a mistake to under-estimate the variety of our problems in the Colonial Empire, it is also a mistake not to realise that our chief objectives in the economic, social and political sphere in all those territories should be common in all of them. The Colonial Empire is a maze amidst the intricacies of which our policy might often get sidetracked and lost if there were not certain principles of policy, certain large objectives, which should be common to our administration in every one of the territories concerned. Those principles and objectives are, so to speak, the pole


stars which give us our direction. First I would lay down the major governing principle. Our primary object in the Colonies is not the advancement of the selfish interests of the people of these islands. It is the genuine advancement of the best interests of the people of the Colonies themselves. It has often been said that our chief concern in the Colonies is to exploit them for our own purposes. Of course, we have a mixture of motives in dealing with the Colonies and I am not going to be a humbug. I am not going to deny that we derive immense benefits from our association with these territories. But if it ever was our main purpose simply to exploit them and their peoples for our own purposes, it has long ceased to be so. Our chief anxiety is that, under our rule and with the aid of our unrivalled experience in government, the peoples of the Colonial Empire, whilst preserving all that is best in their own hallowed customs and their own ancient civilisations, should share in the benefits to be derived from modern scientific discoveries and from social progress and modern political thought, so that they can become full citizens of the modern world. That is the moral basis on which our presence in the Colonies must rest.
When I speak of the peoples of the Colonies I mean all the inhabitants of those territories, not only the more or less indigenous populations, but also the immigrant peoples in this or that territory, whether Indians, or Arabs, or Africans or European settlers who have come into them in more recent times. It is not always easy to reconcile the interests of different races in the same territory but I believe it is possible, with tolerance and understanding, to do so. It is a tall order to bring to the various peoples of these 50 different countries the great benefits to be gained from modern scientific discoveries and social progress and political ideals. I think already we have accomplished a considerable amount.
The conspicuous loyalty of the people of the Colonies to the British connection is an eloquent testimony to their own sense of comfort in their association with us, but there is no room for complacency about our achievements. Far from it. We have still a very long way to go, if we are to attain our objectives. Indeed,

in some cases we have not achieved all that we might have achieved. We have to be more conscious than ever before of our duty to the Colonies. We have to press ahead at a quickening pace with the work, for instance, of giving them adequate social services. I could give many illustrations showing how active we are in that work at the present time. For example, there was my predecessor's appointment of an experienced, able and enlightened labour adviser to the Secretary of State This year we have established in the Colonial Office a separate Social Services Department. In all Colonies, the extension of these social services is going ahead, and the Government of Trinidad and Northern Rhodesia have given examples of the spirit which animates Colonial Governments to-day by working out and getting accepted by their legislatures "five-year plans" of social and economic development.
Let us recognise, since we are responsible for this work, that social betterment in the Colonies is hampered by certain difficulties. Chief among them is the fact that our ability to improve conditions in the Colonies must depend largely on the economic and financial capacity of a Colony to expand and develop social services. There are some Colonies which are comparatively rich, countries which are the happy possessors of mineral wealth, like gold, or tin, or copper, or diamonds. Their revenues are swollen by the profitable exploitation of these highly-prized minerals. But most of the Colonies do not belong to that category. Most of them are producers, wholly, or almost wholly, of agricultural goods. Their economic strength is dependent— I think in many cases too dependent— on the export of a comparatively small number of primary goods. Hon. Members are aware of what has been the fate of these agricultural exports in recent years. In some cases owing to the world supply exceeding the effective world demand, prices have fallen to a very low level. In other cases, the prices of these commodities have only been maintained at reasonable levels by severe restriction of production. In either event the revenue which the Colonial Governments get from their own principal resources, is severely restricted and their power to improve health, education and other social services is, by so much, limited.
This Statement emphasises that the past year has again been a period of comparatively low agricultural prices, and in some of the Colonies we have only been able to maintain and develop the social services by drawing on our reserves. Therefore, one of the fundamental requirements for the general progress and happiness of the peoples of the Colonial Empire, is a constant buttressing and strengthening of those agricultural industries which provide the bulk of colonial exports. Their crops should be rendered as immune as possible from the assaults of those various plagues and diseases which can devastate them. Methods of cultivation should be as up-to-date as possible, so that the quality of colonial produce can compare with that from any other part of the world. Organisation of production and marketing in the Colonies should be efficient, so that the colonial producers do not lose any advantage on that score. This Statement indicates the immense amount of work which our agricultural officers and others are doing in all these fields.
In this brief review I can only pick an example here and there of the kind of work which is being done. Let me give an example from the field of research. Here the agricultural scientist is performing miracles. To take a case from Trinidad, a great many people in Trinidad and many producers are dependent on the production of cocoa. But the fell disease called witch broom has come to threaten the cocoa industry in that island. Therefore, this year an expedition went to South America to search for a strain of cocoa which might have natural powers of resistance to this disease. In the upper reaches of the Amazon River they discovered plants which seemed to be immune. The seeds were collected and packed into an aeroplane by which they were flown to the West Indies. Satisfactory germination of the seeds was secured, and we now hope that by means of the plants which will be raised, the cocoa industry in Trinidad can be saved from its latest enemy.
So it is, all over the Colonial Empire. The agricultural scientists, like some glorified general staff, are constantly mobilising defence forces against agricultural pests and diseases and despatching them to the centres where those enemies are launching their attacks. Thus, for instance, it is recorded in this Statement

that predators have been transported from Fiji to Jamaica to control the banana weevil which was attacking the banana trees there. Other appropriate predatory insects have been sent from Uganda to Kenya to defend the coffee plants from destruction by mealy bugs. Fly parasites which have been protecting the sugar cane in the West Indies from stem borers are now making a voyage to Mauritius to protect the sugar cane there from the same deadly peril, and suitable insects of prey have been deported from the East Coast of Africa to the Seychelles, in order that they may destroy the enemies of the coconut trees. We are spending considerable sums so that the best brains in agricultural science shall be at the disposal of the Colonial producers and they are daily fortifying those export industries which provide the wherewithal for the social services in the Colonies.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman refers to "considerable sums." Can he say how much we are spending?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not the figure here, but in the last year the Colonial Development Fund, for instance, has provided between £ 100,000 and £ 200,000 for various projects of agricultural research.

Captain Arthur Evans: Before my right hon. Friend leaves this part of the subject, can he say what progress is being made in Jamaica in dealing with the leaf spot disease and Panama disease in the banana industry?

Mr. MacDonald: We have recently reached the conclusion, on the best advice, that the leaf spot disease can be rooted out by a general spraying of the trees, and we have recently made arrangements with the Jamaican Government by which the sum of money which they require—I think about £ 250,000—shall be raised in order that that activity may be carried out intensively.
To return to the main thread of my argument, despite the essential value of these export industries in the economy of the Colonies, I think that in some cases almost too much importance has been attached to them. The labouring population of the Colonies has been engaged in growing sugar, or coconuts, or bananas or other produce for export. They have not given enough of their time to growing food for consumption in their own home market. With the money earned from their labour in growing export crops


they have bought their food from merchants— tinned vegetables, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned fruit. That is not a sound policy. For one thing these tinned fruit stuffs have not the nutritional value of fresh food.
There is another evil consequence. In periods when the export crop is meeting with hard competition from the rest of the world and prices fall, then the incomes of the working people in the Colonies become more scanty and their purchasing power is reduced. Either they are not able to buy as much food as they could buy previously, or else they are thrown out of work and they have very few resources to fall back upon. I am certain that one of the things which we have to do in various Colonies is to make the people somewhat less dependent on the return from export crops. We should encourage them to grow more of their own foodstuffs and to produce more nourishing varieties of local foodstuffs for their own consumption, so that they can have fresh vegetables, fresh meat, fresh milk and fresh fruit. In pursuing this policy certain peculiar difficulties will have to be faced and overcome. For instance, in Africa progress is sometimes held up by ancient native systems of land tenure or by the natives' attachment to cattle as the measure of a man's wealth, so that if, in some places, a native eats beef, it is as though a man in this country were to start eating pound notes. Nevertheless, again in this Survey hon. Members will find here and there indications that we are pursuing seriously the policy of making colonial inhabitants more self-sufficient as regards their foodstuffs.

Dr. Haden Guest: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the regulation of prices of the export commodities to which he has referred?

Mr. MacDonald: If I were to deal with the vast number of questions which are apposite to this discussion, I should never sit down, and hon. Members would never have a chance to rise.

Dr. Guest: I thought it was fundamental.

Mr. MacDonald: All these matters are dealt with in this Survey, and a great deal is said about the regulation of schemes for rubber, tea, sugar, and so on, and I have had to select and to recognise that I might leave out some very important sub-

jects from my opening statement, but I am prepared to deal with other questions that hon. Members may wish to raise when, if the Committee wishes me to do so, I rise to reply at the end of the Debate. I was speaking about our policy of encouraging the people of the Colonies to grow more of their own foodstuffs for local consumption. By far the most ambitious experiment which we are trying in that direction is in Jamaica. Since I announced the project in the Debate which we had in this House 12 months ago, the Jamaican Government have been able to raise approximately £ 700,000 by way of loan for the financing of a great extension of land settlement in the island. A new Land Settlement Department has been created to administer the scheme. Some nine properties, covering more than 12,000 acres, have already been approved for acquisition, and another 10 properties are at present under examination. So far 664 families, which include 3,320 people, have been settled under the scheme, but admittedly the slowest moment in the progress of such a scheme comes in the initial stages, and I am confident that the substantial beginning in the first 12 months will be multiplied as the next few years go on.

Mr. Riley: The right hon. Gentleman said that 3,300 people had been settled under the scheme. Have they been settled on land acquired since June of last year, on land now in the possession of the Land Commission authorities?

Mr. MacDonald: They have been settled on land which is in the possession of Government authorities for the purpose of land settlement. Whether they have been settled actually on land which has been acquired since 12 months ago, I am not certain. I think that is so, on my present information, but I am expecting a full report from the Governor in the very near future, and, as hon. Members know, I have promised to lay that report with the full details and to put it in the Library of the House as soon as I receive it.
Let me turn to a brief review of some of the other social services which are being steadily developed, mainly out of local resources, but sometimes with help from other sources like the invaluable Colonial Development Fund. First, there are the health services. Just as the agricultural scientists are waging a ceaseless campaign against the pests and


diseases which afflict agricultural produce, so the medical scientists throughout the Colonial Empire are waging a similar campaign against the pests and diseases which afflict mankind. We have been greatly concerned in Europe of late about aggression; we have been concerned to create some organisation which might resist aggression. We have been doing the same in Africa, but the most potent aggressors in Africa are not men, but insects. Man's powers of aggression are puny compared with the powers of conquest of an insect like the tsetse fly. This little creature can descend suddenly on the cattle and the men of a settled district and make life so intolerable for them that in desperation they move to other lands, and so before long scores of square miles of territory which was cleared and settled and comparatively prosperous returns to waste and bush, where practical sovereignty belongs to the tsetse fly. Our medical scientists have been counter-attacking for years past, and are reconquering those territories which have been taken by this insect. But it is not only in the case of sleeping sickness that our medical scientists are gradually reducing the ravages of human diseases. They are doing the same with yellow fever, with leprosy, with yaws, with malaria, with tuberculosis, and with other diseases.
In other ways, too, we are seeking to build up the health of our fellow-citizens in the Colonies. For instance, sometimes a cause of illness lies in malnutrition, and as often as not it is due not to inadequate food but to the wrong kind of food. The quantity of food may be adequate to support and develop the human frame, but the quality of the food may be wrong, and that is one reason why we are urging in the Colonies that the inhabitants should grow a greater variety of fresh foodstuffs for their own consumption. And we are seeking information on the best types of foodstuffs which are required in different conditions in the various territories. We have started this year a series of field surveys on the question of diet in relation to health. We have made a beginning recently in Nyasaland, and the team of experts who are conducting this survey will continue their investigations in other territories later on.

Mr. Bracken: Has my right hon. Friend observed that in this interesting report, on page 16, it is stated that in

the most interesting experiment at Kampala railway station, it was actually discovered that if they gave the natives a square meal, they did better work?

Mr. MacDonald: All that I have been referring to so far have been scientific surveys on the question of diet, but my hon. Friend has reminded us that we are carrying out certain practical experiments in different parts of the Colonial Empire on various subjects. For instance, we are doing a good deal of nutrition work with regard to food for school children. In Nairobi the Government are giving about 1,000 African school children extra supplies of milk, and in many parts of the Colonial Empire the local Governments are giving supplementary food to children at school. In Ceylon the Government are spending as much as 1,000,000 rupees a year on feeding school children. Our experiments are not confined to school children; we have started experiments with adults. My hon. Friend has been impressed by one of the experiments which has been carried out, where we chose some 200 workmen on the building works at Kampala station in Uganda, men who were drawn from a tribe which was notorious for their poor physique and inefficient work. I hope that the experiment, which we did conduct, of giving these men a full diet, including meat, will have proved to all and sundry that if these men are given that type of diet, which is unusual very often with natives because of the fact to which I have already referred, these people can be turned into as good workpeople as exist anywhere in East Africa. In some cases it is proving an immensely beneficial work.

Mr. Charles Brown: Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not need all that money to be spent on specialists to make that discovery?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member had listened carefully to what I have said, he would have realised that one of the difficulties that we are up against in Africa is the view which many African natives hold with regard to cattle, and their reluctance to include meat in their diet. [An HON. MEMBER: "And they are quite right."] I am afraid I cannot hope to satisfy everyone. But this sort of experiment has an immense value, not only for those capitalist employers whom hon. Members opposite have in


mind, but on these vast native populations themselves. It is part of our native education policy.
There is another highly desirable condition which in the Colonies no less than in this country must have a beneficial effect on the health and happiness of the population, and that is good housing. More and more of the authorities in the Colonies are bending their energies to the provision of proper dwellings for their. people, both in the towns and in the country. We are doing this none too early. In many places we have a great deal of leeway to make up. In this country there was a bad chapter in our social history when mining and other industries were developing, when large populations were moving into new cities or towns or mining villages, and when the authorities concerned were apparently indifferent to the kind of wretched housing conditions which were created to receive those incoming populations. I am afraid that that chapter has been rewritten in the Colonial Empire. There are slums in colonial capitals, there are too many hovels in the mining centres, and in the native reserves the mud huts, like ye olde English cottages, do not come up to the modern standards of roominess and sanitation.
But, again, scattered through this statement, are many indications of considerable housing activities on the part of local Governments. For example it is reported that in Nigeria there has been a considerable improvement in the housing of employés on the plantations in the last 12 months; new legislation has been passed to control and ensure better standards of sanitation and building in the mining areas of the Gold Coast; slum clearance is proceeding in Accra and Sekondi; in Uganda the more sophisticated peasants are abandoning mud and wattle huts for rectangular houses with two, three, four, or even more rooms. In Trinidad the five-year development plan makes provision for the replacing of bad housing conditions by good housing conditions; some of the worst slums are coming down in Jamaica, and similar reports come from other Colonies.
In certain other ways, also, the Colonies are coming abreast of the times. For instance, labour in the Colonies is

becoming more articulate. Labour leaders are demanding for their followers the best conditions of work and wages that the local industries can afford. The situation is sometimes delicate. No doubt that is natural in Colonies which are often far removed from the centres of modern industrial practice and thought. On the one hand, employers are sometimes too conservative in retaining old notions; on the other hand, labour leaders and their followers are often comparatively inexperienced. In that situation the local Governments can do a good deal by intervention to adjust the relations between capital and labour and to bring improvements in the conditions and the pay of working people.
I have only time to refer briefly to the creation of new Labour Departments in Colonies where they did not exist before; to the steady expansion of Labour Departments in Colonies where they do already exist; to the success which in many cases, but unfortunately not in all, has attended labour officers in their conciliation efforts between employers and employed in different Colonies during the last 12 months; to new legislation regularising the establishment of trade unions which has been introduced into some Colonies; and to other legislation establishing conciliation boards or Arbitration machinery. I am certain that the extension of Government activity in this field will result in the avoidance of many industrial clashes during this critical time in the development of the Colonies and will be of great help in bringing improvements in labour conditions in the Colonies.
But our desire to do our best to help the peoples of the Colonies is not one which leads us to be concerned merely with their material advancement. We are anxious that they— just as we are anxious that we ourselves— should develop the mental and intellectual capacity to take part fully in the work and enjoyment of modern life. We seek to develop a sound education system in each one of the Colonies. Here, again, we have to admit that our effort is limited by the financial capacities of the Colonies to pay. Nevertheless, if the progress is sometimes slow it is steady. Once again I can select only one of a number of developments last year, but it illustrates brilliantly our main objective. I choose the foundation of the new college buildings at Makerere


in Uganda. Generous financial contributions from the Governments of Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya, with others from this country and African native sources, have made possible the project of establishing a university college which shall ultimately become a university in East Africa. I have heard whispers of criticisms that it is a mistake to spend a large sum of money on higher education in an area where there is still so much to be done in the development of primary and secondary education, but I do not agree that the policy is unsound.
We are deliberately pursuing this ambitious project partly because it itself will provide the best means of improving the quality and expanding the scope of elementary education in East Africa. What we need is a much greater supply of trained African teachers and they will come from Makerere College and will spread far and wide the benefits of education. It is fundamental that the most appropriate and the surest instruments in the long run for accomplishing the steady advancement of the African people will be educated and responsible African leaders themselves. Indeed, I think that the main objective of our Government in all the Colonies is to train the people of the Colonies to stand always a little more securely on their own feet. The pace of progress must differ from place to place. In some territories it will be a very slow progress of evolution. It is a mistake to endeavour to achieve so important and grand an objective too hastily, but the forward movement must be persistent and we are pursuing it faithfully. Under our guidance in every part of the Colonial Empire the local populations are producing more and more of their own doctors and nurses, their own schoolteachers and agricultural officers, their own civil servants and lawyers, their own leaders in every walk of life. More and more, also, they are producing their own legislators and their own executive officers and that ultimately is the crux of the whole matter.
It is our aim that at length not only in the professions but also in government, the peoples of the Colonies should be able to manage their own affairs, and the past year has seen constitutional changes in a number of territories. For example, in Ceylon they are at the present moment discussing in the State Council

some very far-reaching proposals for constitutional reform. In Malta a measure of constitutional advance has been inaugurated. In Tanganyika we are adding unofficial members to the Executive Council.

Mr. Riley: Natives?

Mr. MacDonald: The decision was taken only in the last few weeks and I have not reached a conclusion in my consultations with the Governor as to the type of representatives to be included on the Council, but we shall be reaching a conclusion on this point in the comparatively near future. In Mauritius we have nominated this year Indian representatives of the small planters to sit on the Council of Government. If it is natives that the House is interested in, then throughout Africa we are encouraging native self-government under the principles of indirect rule, and this report indicates that the number of native treasuries in native territories is being constantly increased. In the Colonies no less than in other parts of the Empire what we desire to teach men gradually is the wise exercise and enjoyment of freedom. That freedom which we prize so highly ourselves we seek to spread among His Britannic Majesty's subjects in whatever part of this vast Colonial Empire they live, and as long as our administration is conducted in that spirit, our work will be justified and it will prosper throughout the Colonial Empire.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Paling: The Colonial Secretary, like most of his predecessors, has painted a very rosy picture of the Colonies. He has taken us from the Arctic Circle to the Equator, and spoken of coral islands, deserts, rich country and all the rest of it, and if one did not know the other side of the picture one would believe that all is right with the Colonial Empire and there is not really much to grumble about. It was the kind of speech that might have been made to the British Empire Society, where the impression is always given that ours is the best Colonial Empire in the world that ever existed or could exist, and where they nearly always forget the other side of the picture. I am sorry to say there is another side to the picture, and I propose to speak about a few of the things that are wrong, some of them very wrong, in the Colonies. I think we should be mistaken in our conception of our duty to the Colonies if we


contented ourselves every time this question comes up— which is only once a year, not so often as it might— with saying all the nice things we possibly can say about them. It is not only the Secretary of State for the Colonies who can say nice things. I could if I tried, but it would be presenting a lop-sided picture and would not actually represent the facts.
I congratulate the Minister on the presentation of his second report. It is well done in so far as it says anything, but it is lop-sided. If one read that and nothing else one would get the same impression from it as one gets from most of the annual reports printed by our Colonies, that everything is all right. We cannot get to know of the things that are wrong either from the annual reports or from the Colonial Secretary's review. We never hear until something goes wrong in one of the Colonies and there is a "bust up," or until there are strikes and riots and the police are called in. Then suddenly the Colonial Office wake up and admit more or less reluctantly in the House of Commons that there is some truth in the matter. The Government then appoint a Commission to go out and report, and the Government generally promise to do something, and nearly always forget to do it. It is time we finished with that kind of thing.
We have had criticism from all quarters of the world about things that are wrong in the Colonies which we ought to put right. The Minister said he would like recommendations for improvements, and I hope that he will talk about some of them in his future reports, if he is still in office though I hope that he is going to be replaced, before we have finished, by somebody from this side of the House. Still, if he is there I hope he will try to give us a more accurate picture of some of the deficiencies that exist in the Colonies. He said among other things:
The experiment of keeping Colonies and governing them well ought at least to have a trial.
That was a statement made in Lord Durham's Report a century ago. We have had a hundred years of experience. It is true that some of the Colonies have since become Dominions, but they were the countries inhabited by white people with as good an apprehension of events as

ourselves. There are other Colonies inhabited by coloured people where we have had experience over a long period — in some cases 100 years and in other cases either over 100 years or under 100 years. For instance, there is St. Helena; we cannot say that our experience there has been really a good one and that we have done well. Would the Minister say that in St. Helena, where we have been for well over 100 years, everything is well and that we have made a success of things? He knows that we have not.

Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Member aware that the Bishop of St. Helena is taking up a collection for St. Helena at the present time?

Mr. Paling: No, I was not aware of that. I have no doubt that will be a great help. I asked a question this afternoon about small holdings in St. Helena and the answer the Minister gave was almost ridiculous. It is true we are doing something. We are building two houses, I believe, in one case, and four in another.

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member will appreciate, on reading the answer, that I point out that this is an interim programme pending consideration of a larger programme which is at present in the offing and is receiving active consideration.

Mr. Paling: If this represents the best that is going to be done for dealing with the situation, we shall not be much better off six or even ten years hence. It needs much more to be done than is indicated in the answer to the question this afternoon. I would like to ask how much of the poverty and the unemployment that exist in St. Helena to-day is due to the fact that most of the cultivable land on the highlands is in the ownership of three people. How much of the relatively high prices of some of the foodstuffs that these people have to buy is due to the fact that all the import of food is in the hands of two people? How much of the situation is due to the fact that these three people— coupling those who hold the land and those who import the food — are members of the executive council nominated by the Governor? All this has some relation, and if we are to attend to this business seriously we must begin at the bottom and alter it fundamentally. The Colonial Secretary goes on to say in his review for the year April, 1938 to 1939:


We have done our best to govern the territories for which we are responsible well. It is true there have been most serious disturbances in Palestine, and local trouble in several of the West Indian Colonies; but if all the populations of all the territories in which disturbances have occurred are added together they amount to some 3,000,000, and the other colonial dependencies, in which public security has been undisturbed, embrace a total population of 56,000,000 souls.
It is very comforting if you look at it like that. In all the places where disturbances have occurred, the people are most advanced, for instance in the West Indies. Although disturbances have occurred there, it is fair to say that conditions there are better than they are in the places where the 56,000,000 people live. If disturbances have occurred in those places where the people are most advanced and have better conditions, what is going to be the nature of the disturbances among the 56,000,000 people when they are sufficiently advanced to realise the appalling conditions under which they have to live? A lot of us have been asking questions upon this business in the last 12 months. I quite agree that in some particulars, with regard to the appointment of labour advisers and dealing with labour inspectorates, something has been done in some Colonies. But the amount that has been done in relation to what remains to be done is positively insignificant. If we move at this pace we will in a thousand years do practically nothing which will be worth while.
I hope that the Colonial Secretary, who is a young man and knows about these things, is going to hurry this business up and assert himself, and demand that these things are done for the mitigation of the troubles under which these people suffer. On the question of wages, it is not accurate to say that wages do not play a very big part in the Colonies, particularly in Africa. But it is true to say that there are a tremendous number of people who are compelled to earn wages in the Colonies, particularly in West and East Africa, and that number is growing year by year. It is true to say that thousands of those people have been more or less forced off their lands. Hundreds of square miles have been taken. They have been pushed back and they have had heavy taxation imposed upon them and have no other opportunities of paying their taxation except by going out for wages. Wages are becoming very important. The Colonial Secretary said something to the

effect that if ever there had been exploitation in the Colonial Empire it had passed. I do not know what he means by saying a thing like that. Whether Great Britain exploits the Empire or not it is true that Britishers do. They are exploiting the natives as badly as ever the people of this country were exploited, and that will continue.

Sir Edward Grigg: No.

Mr. Paling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of making a speech later, but I hope to produce strong arguments in support of what I say. Here are the wages. Take those in Tanganyika. I might say that if the Colonial Secretary wants an example of what a report should be he might tell the other Colonies to copy the example of Tanganyika. Tanganyika does not tell us all that I would like to know but it tells infinitely more than the other people. As a matter of fact the reports are important not for what they tell us but for what they hide. Perhaps that is due to the fact that Tanganyika is a mandated territory and this report has to go to Geneva and is not only subject to examination and scrutiny by people in this country, but also to that of an outside controlling body. The wages for unskilled labour are 5s. to 10s. per month of 30 working days. Is that exploitation?

Captain Alan Graham: Surely the hon. Member should at least offer figures in relation to the cost of living in those parts?

Mr. Paling: I will do anything I can to oblige hon. Members opposite. Our case is so well founded that we can afford to answer any question that is asked. The diet of which the Colonial Secretary spoke as being necessary is almost impossible for these people, small and cheap to buy as it is. They have to pay pretty heavy taxation and some have to contribute to their native treasuries for such things as education. It is quite true that some get more than 5s. or 10s., but most of the people are unskilled and come within that category. I suggest that there is very great room for improvement in that direction. As I stated, Tanganyika has to submit a report to the Permanent Mandates Commission, which made some criticisms in 1936. It says in paragraph 6, in observations on the administration of Tanganyika in 1936:


The Permanent Mandates Commission express a hope that they will find in the next annual report particulars of the wage policy adopted by the Mandatory Power.
I would like to find the same thing. There is no wage policy. It is left to the employers to pay what they like. There are no trade unions or organisations and there is no way of forcing the payment of anything better, in spite of the demand for labour. We are told all the way through the reports that the demand for labour is growing and that there is a labour shortage, but that does not appear to have sent wages up in this case. It appears to prove that the best and shortest way to send up wages is to get people organised into trade unions, but none exists. The Commission in paragraph 107 of this report advise that minimum wage-fixing machinery should be established by law and that provision should be made in the relevant legislation for any order to fix the minimum wage to receive the approval of the legislature before it is put into effect. This recommendation, together with the others made by that Commission, is said to be under consideration. The report continues:
Pending the introduction of any legislation the Government is not in a position to intervene in connection with wages, nor indeed is there any present necessity for it to do so, since, generally speaking, the African is not economically dependent on wage earnings, as are most members of an industrial community.
I hope that the Colonial Secretary will press the necessity of having a wage policy at the earliest possible moment and of putting into operation minimum wage legislation. I take Uganda, which is regarded as a fairly progressive Colony, but wages there are equally bad. In the report it says:
The average monthly wages varied considerably in different localities and there is no standard scale applicable to all industries or even to casual labour. In the cotton industry skilled labourers were paid from 8s. to 11s. without rations and from 7s. to 10s. with rations.
So the value of the rations is 1s. per month.

Captain A. Graham: Surely the hon. Member must take into consideration the fact that in many of these places it is impossible for a native to spend any money. The position is exactly the same as in the Middle Ages in this country, when wages in kind were of much greater value than wages in cash.

Mr. Paling: If a man is paid 8s. per month and works for 300 days out of 365 and has heavy taxation to pay including, perhaps, for more than one wife, it takes a pretty big piece out of his wages. He still has left his family in the background. The hon. Member says they cannot spend money, but when I was in Tanganyika in 1928 I found that a savings bank had been formed for the natives to put their money in.
The recommendation said there was no doubt that those wages were too low and that industries which could not afford to pay better wages were on an insecure foundation and were not likely to endure. They said that hours of work varied according to occupation. Government employés, industrial labourers and employés of the building trades worked, on an average, from 46 to 48 hours a week, employés in mines 54 hours, and employé's in ginneries, from four to seven months yearly, 60 hours. Agricultural labourers were normally engaged on piece work, which occupied them from 36 to 42 hours a week. There are many people employed in the ginneries, and I asked the Secretary of State this question about them this afternoon:
 "Whether he has considered a recently published report on the labour situation in Uganda, in which it is stated that long hours are worked in the case of small ginneries; that among 95 ginneries, 31 had 10-hour shifts, 39 had 11-hour shifts, and 6 had 12-hour shifts; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.
The Secretary of State tells me that he is prepared to enter into negotiation about the matter. I believe that the wages in these ginneries are very low indeed.
I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he is satisfied with this kind of thing. He talked, in his general review, of cooperating with people out there. Cooperating with whom? Does he mean the employers? They are the people who, in the main, are responsible for this state of affairs. Does he intend to cooperate with the natives or with the exploiters of the people who are earning these shockingly small wages, working these long hours and living on diets to which the right hon. Gentleman himself has already alluded? Many suggestions have been made in the course of years by the Colonial Office to the various Governors of the Colonies, and if carried out they might have helped and bettered


things, but scores of them have been more or less ignored, and nothing has been done. The right hon. Gentleman talks, and with some truth, about having improved things here and there, but the amount that has been done is fantastically small and the amount that remains to be done is enormously large. I hope he will give his attention to it.
I come to the question of compulsory labour in Tanganyika. In the year 1937 there were 2,622 porters compulsorily requisitioned, and 32,056 others, making a total of nearly 350,000 man-days worked under compulsory labour. Only Africans are subject to it, not whites. This should be done away with, and I hope that one result of the Commission's report may be the abolition of this system. There is the question, too, of contract labour. There were 22,000 people in Tanganyika under contract labour, and most of them were recruits. Recruiting is itself an evil. These people have to work according to the terms of their contract, and I will give particulars of what the contract is like and what the labourers have to put up with. I would like hon. Members to ask themselves whether they think this kind of thing ought to obtain for a moment longer in our Colonies. Here are the terms of the contract in use in Kenya:
An Ordinance to Regulate the Employment of Servants.
"Servants" includes labourers, skilled and unskilled.
Any servant may be fined a sum not exceeding one-half of his monthly wages, and in default may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding one month, if he is convicted of any of the following acts.
Let hon. Members listen to the enormity of the acts which are made penal offences:
If, after having entered into a contract, he fails or refuses without lawful cause to commence the service at the stipulated times.
In other words, if he is late for work he is guilty of a penal offence and you take half his monthly wages or he can be put into gaol. Does any hon. Gentleman think that that sort of thing ought to go on for a single moment longer? The ordinance continues:
If, without leave or other lawful cause, he absents himself"—
from the performance of his work or—
if during working hours he unfits himself for the proper performance of his work by becoming or being intoxicated;

If he neglects to perform any work which it was his duty to have performed or if he carelessly or improperly performs any work which, from its nature, it was his duty under his contract to have performed carefully and properly"—
and so on. There is a lot of these penal clauses under which half the man's wages are deducted or he is sent to prison. The Colonial Secretary gave his consent to that Bill not many months ago. I draw his attention to that side of the matter in order that he may remember it before he makes his next Colonial speech.
With regard to the Ottawa Agreements, there were certain restrictions imposed on the trade of other countries as a result of those Agreements and that was a new policy in the Colonies. I think they had always been open to other countries up to that time and even now under the mandate system these territories have to remain open to the trade of the world. I suppose that one of the main ideas behind this was that we would get more of the trade of the world between this country and the Colonies concerned. That may have been all right, but I can suggest a much better way of doing it. This position has built up a case against us in the dictatorship countries. Would it not have been much better, if we had wanted to increase trade with the Colonies, and with these 56,000,000 to 60,000,000 people, if we had done our best to raise their wages and thereby give them something with which to buy from this country? That never seemed to have entered the mind of the Colonial Secretary or of the Government, or, if it did, they have refused to consider it. They have taken this other step, which has given rise to irritation.
What is to be our future policy in this business? It appears almost certain that wage-earning is on the increase and that there is a decrease in the number of Africans who depend upon peasant proprietorship and upon the cultivation of their land. Industrialism and urbanisation are going on, but nothing is being done about it. We are going on in the same way as we did in this country 150 years ago, and the results will probably be worse. We are having to spend millions of pounds every year now to pull down the slums that we created in this country and that ought never to have been here. In spite of this example before us we are deliberately allowing this thing to continue in our Colonies, with


probably worse results there than in this country.
I have not time to deal with much more, but I will turn to education. Speaking at Grosvenor House a few days ago, at the banquet of the British Empire Society, the Colonial Secretary said that it was Britain's main purpose to enable her subjects throughout the Colonies and protectorates to partake in an ever larger measure of the benefits of modern education. I wish that were true, but the facts do not bear it out. My examination of the figures and of reports from various Colonies seems to bear out the truth of the statement of a West African writer not long ago that in some parts of West Africa, the Gold Coast for instance, the rate of progress in education is such that it would take 700 years before the whole of the population would be able even to read and write. He added that in some of these East African dependencies 700 years would be an optimistic figure. Is that what the Secretary of State means by making progress in modern education?
In Tanganyika there are 1,250,000 children of school age, and more than 1,000,000 of them attend no institution of any description. By far the larger proportion of them who attend school go to those provided by missionaries and not by the Government. The expenditure on general education is estimated in shillings per head of the population. In 1933 the expenditure on Europeans was 18.15 shillings and on natives 0.28. That is a comparison between 18s. 1½ d. in respect of Europeans and 3d. for the Africans.

Mr. T. Smith: Education, on the Woolworth basis.

Mr. Paling: The figure for the Africans is actually going down. The amount spent in 1937 on Europeans is given as 26.22s. and on Africans as .26. If I take the amounts which are spent on education altogether in the general revenue they appear to be worse than they were five or six years ago. In 1932 the amount spent on education was 5.72 per cent. of the revenue. In 1937 that percentage was 3.99. That shows the rate of progress in educating the Africans. Yet the Colonial Secretary comes here this afternoon and tells us by implication that we are doing great things. We are not. We have had

some of these Colonies for 100 years and others for not so long as that, but we ought to have made much more progress. Other Powers have made more progress. I believe that in the Dutch East Indies the proportion of children educated is enormously greater than we have achieved in almost any of our non-self-governing colonies, African in particular. If the Dutch can do it, so ought we. We ought to be ashamed.
Let me go on to another point, and with it I will close. I have been asking questions in this House during the last few weeks about education in Kenya. It appears that school fees are charged to Africans attending any school which receives a grant from the Government. I put down a question on 10th May asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many native children in Kenya were attending grant-aided schools, and what fees were charged?
He replied:
124,005 African children attended grant-aided schools in Kenya in 1938. Elementary school fees are fixed on a district basis and are related to economic conditions. A typical scale is: for boys, 50 cents— that is sixpence— a term rising to three shillings a term in the fifth year; and for girls, free tuition on entry, rising to two shillings a term in the fifth year."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1939; col. 464, Vol. 347.]
I asked how many children had been turned out of the elementary schools in Kenya because of inability to continue to pay fees, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was as follows:
The Governor informs me that no cases have been brought to his notice of children being turned out of elementary schools owing to inability to pay fees. Government and mission schools reduce fees for poor pupils." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1939: col. 464, Vol. 347.]
A report of my question and the Colonial Secretary's answer appeared in the African papers, and on 23rd May a letter was written to the Governor by Archdeacon Owen. Archdeacon Owen is looked upon as a bit of a nuisance, particularly by the settler element, but, as far as I know, his statements are always pretty accurate. His letter reads as follows:
I see in the East African Standard of 19th May that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, replying to questions in the House stated that the Governor informs me that no cases have been brought to his notice of children being turned out of elementary schools owing to inability to pay fees.'


have been very closely associated with the working of the grant-in-aid system of African secondary schools since its inception about 15 years ago. Since the ' sector ' school system of elementary schools was started in 1929, I have been mainly responsible for the inspection of our schools in this Province, and have been until 1938 a member of the District Education Board for Central Kavirondo. I have had to expel hundreds of children from our grant-aided elementary schools. Of our 30 odd sector schools, there has not been a single school from which I have not been obliged to expel fee-less children, sometimes by the score. It has happened occasionally that, after an inspection, the school has been largely depleted, so many children having had to be turned out to produce fees.
I will not read any more, though there is much more that is equally interesting. Archdeacon Owen wrote again to the Governor on 25th May. He said:
Further to my letter of the 23rd, I have this afternoon visited Hono, Alego, grant-aided elementary school. The head teacher informed me that he had this day expelled 10 pupils for lack of fees, and that he had 50 pupils less on his roll this term compared with last term, and that the reason was their inability to pay the fees.
He went on to say:
May I ask that the facts contained in my last letter and in this one be communicated to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and may I beg that the grant-in-aid rules be revised so as to make at least sub-elementary education free for the children of taxpayers who desire their children to have it?
How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the wage-earners, who earn as little as 8s. a month and who have to bear relatively high taxation, and also the thousands of peasant proprietors who are not able to sell enough stuff even to pay their taxation, to pay school fees? This works out as class education— education for the people who can afford it, and not for those who cannot. To-day I asked the Secretary of State the following question:
Whether he is prepared to recommend the abolition of school fees for African children in grant-aided secondary schools in Kenya?
His answer was:
No, Sir. The policy of the Government of Kenya is to advise aided schools to charge fees; but reductions in or exemptions from the fees are made in necessitous cases.
It is no wonder that in East Africa it is going to take more than 700 years before all the population learn to read and write, if this kind of policy is to continue. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in

his job and wants to do the things he has indicated this afternoon, he will turn his mind to the necessity for things being done which are not being done at the moment. A previous Secretary of State sent out a message to the Colonies containing a statement to the effect that the interests of the natives, where they clash with the interests of Europeans or immigrants, must be paramount. Do not the things I have mentioned this afternoon, and a score of other things that my hon. Friends here can mention, prove that the interests of the natives have not only not been paramount, but in most cases have not even had consideration? If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make this an Empire of which we can be proud, the best thing in the world to which he can give attention is the thing I have spoken of this afternoon, and perhaps, if he does that, we might, instead of criticising him, be disposed to. praise him.

5.39 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I have listened with great interest to many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), but I feel that it is hardly fair to place so much blame on the Colonial Secretary, because we must always recognise that it is the House of Commons that is responsible, and that it is up to us to make concrete suggestions to improve the methods by which the Colonial Empire can be looked after and properly guided.

Mr. Bracken: Are we to understand that we ought not to blame the Secretary of State for these matters, seeing that we only get one opportunity a year of discussing his Estimates?

Sir R. Glyn: My hon. Friend is a little quick. I had hardly got on my feet, and I was going to say that I think it is very difficult for Members who take an interest in these matters really to draw the attention of the country to the various things that we all feel should be considered, if we only have one opportunity a year. It is really fantastic to think that we can put up a case, if we are challenged by the Fascist countries as being a great Colonial Empire, if we are satisfied with methods which may have been all right before the telegraph, the aeroplane and other developments in communications, but which now seem to me to be entirely


inadequate. I think it is up to all of us who believe in good government to see to it, if I may quote the first sentence of this admirable booklet, that Parliament itself shall recognise its own responsibility, and not unload it on to an unfortunate Minister of the Crown.
The Minister stands there in a position of responsibility, and I agree that he is the only person whom we can blame, but, if we want to get things done, we must not be satisfied with making the Colonial Empire a party game. I agree wholeheartedly with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wentworth, and I believe there is a great measure of agreement in regard to this matter in all quarters of the House. It is essentially a matter which we should all face, not as a party issue, but as one of constitutional importance as to how far the Colonial Empire can really be properly looked after and its affairs attended to by Parliament at Westminster. The Statute of Westminster was really the turning point in enabling the House of Commons to pay proper attention to the Colonial Empire. Before that there was far too much discussion on what are now the great Dominions, which are separate entities, entirely divorced from any control by the House of Commons. That surely makes it all the more important that we should concentrate our attention on the affairs of the Colonial Empire.
Some of us have been to different parts of the Empire, and many Members on these benches have held positions of supreme importance there. Their voices are not often heard, because the occasion does not arise sufficiently often. Surely it would be possible to devise something in the way of a council or committee where people who are interested in these matters could sit in more or less permanent session. I feel ashamed sometimes when in Westminster Hall we meet at the Empire Parliamentary Association people from some of the British Colonies who say, "I have been looking up Hansard since I have been here, and our affairs have not been considered during the last six years. What step can be taken, except by questions put by private Members of Parliament to the Minister, to have these matters attended to?" I repeat that we might consider the machinery of government in this connection.
I do not know how many hon. Members have had the opportunity of reading the most enlightened book which has been written by Lord Hailey on the whole question of Africa. Anyone who reads that book must recognise that one of the mistakes that we have made in our method of Colonial government has been in treating each of these Colonies as a separate entity, and in not taking a broader view and a more general scope. I notice that for purposes of defence it is intended that the Colonies of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika shall be treated as one unit, and I cannot see why, for purposes of peaceful development, there could not be a grouping very much on the lines set out in this paper, over which there might be either a High Commissioner or a Governor-General who would be in a position to see that social services advanced throughout the whole area, and were not left to the perhaps more energetic efforts of one particular Governor and his advisers in a particular Colony.
I have been struck by what has been done by Italy in some parts of her Colonial world. I know that a great many hon. Members think that no good can come out of Signor Mussolini, but I believe we have a good deal to learn from Italy from the point of view of practical effect on the natives and what can be done for their everyday well-being. Where Italy finds the money I do not know, but, if you go to Libya today, you will find magnificent roads, town planning, water supply and schools; you will find excellent houses, school clinics in the villages, draining of the marshes, and so on. All these are practical matters which seem to me to be of supreme importance, and I hate to feel a sense of inferiority when I think of what is being done there. If it is possible for Count Balbo to carry through this scheme, surely it is possible for the British Empire. Again, if you go to Rhodes, you see marvellous attention being paid to all the archaeological relics. That brings tourists, and has soon paid for itself. Have we made any considerable effort to put right what has been wrong for so long in Cyprus? If you go to Cyprus you see marvellous opportunities of showing that we are a cultured people. Why should we not help the natives there to be proud of the territory in which they live, and give them assistance in preserving the beautiful


records of the past, so that we may feel that we have contributed something to future generations?
There is another thing which I feel ought to be mentioned, and that is the method of inter-communication between different points of the Empire. A step forward was made by the establishment of the Cable and Wireless Company. Although I did not quite agree with the terms, it has certainly had the effect of improving communications, but the position as regards actual physical communication between individuals is an absolute scandal. I cannot get to Cyprus by any normal route unless I go in an Italian steamer. Surely the British Empire could somehow or other provide a line of ships, operating on their lawful, normal occasions, which would bring in every part of the Empire. As regards flying, we must all be wondering whether, if we get through the present period of tension and the country begins to turn its efforts in peaceful directions, we shall not be able to make considerable improvements in our air communications. Why should we not now be doing what the Fascist countries are doing: establishing seaplane bases and aeroplane bases, storing fuel? In other words, it is time we woke up to recognise that we cannot remain as a house with a back garden that is not being cultivated and developed.
We have inherited this Empire. Are we worthy of the work which was done by those who went before us, or are we filled with a smug complacency? Do we believe that the organisation of the Colonial Office has in it that vision without which any nation must perish, and without which it is impossible for us to be able to justify the holding of this vast territory? Indeed, it frightens me when I see the boastfulness of this document when it speaks of the number of natives that are under our control. Those are figures; we want more than that. We want to feel that each of these natives is proud to be under our rule, that it is not only terror that prevents them going somewhere else; and if we have that desire to go further forward with work that was accomplished in the past, that should under modern conditions make the lot of the natives better. I agree with what the hon. Member for Wentworth said, that the Colonial Empire should rest on the contentment and better education of the natives. Better education is important

in these days of mechanisation, which is not confined to Europe but is spreading through the world. The higher the standard of education you can achieve for the people of the Colonial Empire, the greater use they can make of mechanisation, the better wages they can earn, and the more their purchasing power will help us in this country.
I think this Paper is a great advance on what we have had before. It is an improvement on the first two editions. We owe a great deal to Lord Harlech, the recent Colonial Secretary, for having initiated this scheme. But we must not be satisfied. We must do more. I believe that this problem of Colonial possessions will become of first-class magnitude, probably before the right hon. Gentleman is given an opportunity of addressing us again. We should seize this opportunity with both hands, and make up our minds that, at all costs, we will reorganise the whole method of Colonial administration if necessary. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do these things. The totalitarian States have the advantage of working about four times as fast as the democracies, and we have not much time at our disposal. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to try to devise some way by which hon. Members in all parts of this House may be able, not only once a year, but at all times of the year, to collaborate with him and with those excellent officials overseas, who must be often discouraged by the incorrect reports spread about and the little praise they get for their hard work. I am sure they have found their best friends among the natives. Perhaps we may all play a great part, if we are given the opportunity, in helping the right hon. Gentleman and those officials.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. de Rothschild: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has remarked that the Statute of Westminster has given this House greater liberty to discuss the Colonial Empire. I wish to echo what he said about our being given so little time to discuss Colonial questions, and I hope that more time will be found. I was struck by what the hon. Member said about the Fascist countries, and by the praise which he gave to the achievements of Italy. I do not believe we are in any way inferior to the Italians as colonisers. I do not believe that our swamps, where they are drained, are worse than those in Libya. I believe our roads are as good as


theirs, and I believe that there are as few flies in our dependencies as in Italy's. Certainly there are fewer flies on us. If you go through the British Empire, you will find that the antiquities, whether they are in Africa or in Cyprus, are well looked after.
I must revert to the right hon. Gentleman and his administration of our Colonial Empire. The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his annual review of the Colonial administration. I wish to echo what has been said by the two hon. Members who preceded me in paying the right hon. Gentleman a compliment for his achievements in compiling this document, but I suggest that it is too highly coloured and also far too complacent. I agree with the hon. Member for Abingdon that there was too much gloating over what we have been doing in the Colonial Empire, although there is a record of real advance in some fields. There is no doubt that great achievement has been made in the improvement of health conditions throughout the Empire, and especially in Africa and the West Indies. Great attention has been paid to the increasing problem of nutrition. As regards the technicians in the Colonial service, what they have done for agriculture is of immense value. In fact, all the technicians, all the numberless scientists who work under the Colonial administration, have done admirable work in the past year. The progress that has been made is due to the men overseas. As we see in the document, they number 250,000 men— a great army indeed. These men, well-trained people in a great many walks of life, form a fine instrument in the hands of any administration, and they could bring immense advantages to the Colonial dependencies.
But it is essential that they should be properly supported by the administration at home, and I often wonder whether these admirable men are used in the right way. The responsibility for using the talent, the knowledge, the assiduity, and the devotion of these men, who are prepared to live in distant parts of the world for the greater part of their lives, is a responsibility of the administration and also of Parliament. The Colonial Office has as great a duty to these men as to the natives themselves. This House must be vigilant to see that this duty is

adequately carried out. In some fields of activity there is no ground for that complacency which I suggest is the keynote of this report. Indeed, this complacency is in no way shared by the House and the country. There are deficiencies in our Colonial rule, and I regret to say that there is little reference to them in this Blue Book. But perhaps these deficiencies were not wholly absent from the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers, because, at the very beginning of the Blue Book, the right hon. Gentleman himself tries to minimise them. In the first paragraph, on the first page, he says:
It is true that there have been most serious disturbances in Palestine, and local trouble in several of the West Indian Colonies; but if all the populations of all the territories in which disturbances have occurred are added together, they amount to some 3,000,000, and the other Colonial dependencies, in which public security has been undisturbed, embrace a total population of about 56,000,000 souls. In contrast with the disturbances which have taken place in so many parts of the world, the history of the Colonial dependencies, as of the whole British Empire, has, in the main, been one of constructive peaceful development.
I suggest that this is a most unfortunate attitude. If you leave out Palestine, with its 1,000,000 inhabitants, you still have 2,000,000 disturbed out of 58,000,000. Apply this proportion to this country, with its total population of 46,000,000. Suppose we had a town of 1,250,000 or 1,500,000 where there was riot or bloodshed, what would the right hon. Gentleman say? Would he call that unimportant? Of the colonies with disturbances, the Blue Book mentions only the West Indies. I shall await the report of the Commission before trying to discuss this matter, but I take it that that will shake the right hon. Gentleman's complacency. On the third page of this report the right hon. Gentleman makes a reference to the Press. It is interesting to note his attitude on that question. He mentions that certain sections of the Press have devoted attention to labour conditions in the Colonies, but he reserves his compliments for the more serious Press. Does this include a daily newspaper which has thrown so much light lately on conditions in Newfoundland and which has now set out to do the same thing in certain parts of West Africa? I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will regard these reports as serious, no matter what they reveal.
What of the 56,000,000 undisturbed? Does he think all is well there? I will speak primarily of one colony where there is at the present time perfect calm: a colony which is near to us, a jewel in the Mediterranean — I mean Cyprus. What kind of calm reigns there; how is it maintained, and how long will it last? It is true that there have been no disturbances in Cyprus since 1931. The legislative council was abolished after the troubles that occurred at that time. The nine official, and 15 non-official members were disbanded, and the Governor himself was given power to legislate. All instruments of government were passed to the Governor's nominees from his own Advisory Council to village councils throughout the island. I wonder whether that is the freedom and the liberty which the right hon. Gentleman says is flourishing throughout the Empire. As the Governor himself put it, what happened was this:
Village feuds have given way to ordered life under the authority of village commissions with increasing power and prestige.
This is what Sir Richard Palmer, the late Governor of Cyprus, wrote only last January in one of the newspapers published in this country. But even worse than the suppression of elective institutions is the suppression of personal liberty, of political activity, and of freedom of expression. In 1932 the Governor passed a law which forbade a meeting of five or more people for political discussion unless such permission was given by the district commissioner representing the executive. The permission is said never to be granted.
I come to the complete control of the Press. This, as the Committee know, because so many questions have been put in this House, is exercised in the most arbitrary fashion. Newspapers are suppressed for criticism of the Government without any reason being given, and there is even a strict censorship of those newspapers which are allowed to appear. Articles on Cyprus which appear in the British Press, leading articles in the "Manchester Guardian," for example, are frequently suppressed, and in fact even references to Cyprus which are made in this House are suppressed in the island itself. I very much doubt whether the speech which I am making to-day about that island will be allowed to be reported.

Colonel Ponsonby: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the increase in the prosperity of Cyprus in the last six years, and also the crime figures for those years? If so, I think that he will find that they are quite different figures from the picture he is painting.

Mr. de Rothschild: I do not think that that makes any difference to the picture I am painting. I am pointing out the lack of liberty which exists at present in Cyprus and the dictatorship which is constituted there, and I will later on in my speech, if the Committee are patient with me, also discuss the question which the hon. and gallant Member has raised. This censorship to which I was alluding was lightened after the articles which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" last December. It has now been reimposed apparently with even greater severity. Nothing which appears in the British Press to-day relating to the political situation in Cyprus may now be printed in the Cyprus papers. What is the reason for continuing this very strict regime? The troubles of 1931 were fomented by pro-Greek agitators, but the movement for union with Greece is all but dead. We know that the Cypriot hates totalitarian systems and would not wish to change from British rule, however unlike British rule the rule that he now knows may be, to a more rigid and more cruel dictatorship. True, there is a movement for autonomy in Cyprus, but the autonomy which they want is autonomy within the Empire.
I wonder whether the pro-Greek agitation is being kept alive as a bogey to provide an excuse for suppression? Suppression of what? What do we want to suppress? A justifiable desire for representative government? That is what we are trying to stop. A petition has been signed only quite recently by thousands of people and it has just been presented to the Governor, demanding a representative form of government and expressing the strongest dissatisfaction with the present regime. It is for this reason that the censorship of the Press has been re-imposed. In the "Daily Telegraph" to-day we were able to read that one municipal councillor of Nicosia was dismissed for being associated with the petition, and that others have resigned as a protest against the muzzling of the Press. I would like to know from the


Minister the reason or the wisdom in this policy.
There are as many as 8,000 Cypriots in England at the present time. Seven thousand of them have come here since 1931. They are taking the places in London and in this country, in the confectionery trade and in the hotel business, that were occupied before 1930 by Greeks and Italians. These men and women who come here read the British Press, and surely they can convey any information on that subject to their own people in Cyprus. I believe that this restrictive policy does not really in any way suppress political agitation; it merely drives it underground. This was clearly brought out by another correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" in December, 1938, when Mr. Arthur Merton, a very distinguished journalist, wrote a series of articles. In these articles he pointed out that all Cypriots, according to one who was qualified to judge, considered
that the arbitrary methods of the administration, by arousing hostility to the Government in the towns, are creating a dangerous anti-British current.
Though this state of affairs is bad enough, the quality of the administration makes it even worse. The "Times" Cyprus correspondent, self-appointed apologist for the administration though he is, said in a recent article:
The Island seems to be regarded as a suitable convalescent home for British officials whose health has suffered in less favourable climes. This and the transfer of officials every few years is detrimental to the administration. It is felt that some should be permanently retained, preference being given to linguists. Until the arrival of Sir Richard Palmer, few officials even troubled to learn Greek and Turkish, the two languages spoken in Cyprus.
It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite pointed out, that the regime has some things to its credit. The revenue is buoyant in spite of the poverty of the people themselves, and the trade figures also are the highest that have ever been experienced. The imports in 1937 were £ 2,220,000, or £ 740,000 more than in 1935, and the exports were £ 2,180,000, nearly a million pounds more than in 1935. Incidentally the British share of these exports has fallen— and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of this— while Germany's has risen. Germany, in 1935, took 9½ per cent. of Cyprus exports, and in 1937 it took just

over 26 per cent., whereas Britain, in 1935, took just under 26 per cent., and in 1937 24½ per cent.
Another step which I am prepared to acknowledge is in the right direction is the introduction of a measure for the relief of agricultural indebtedness. That affects 80 per cent. of the people of Cyprus. Only they can say whether it is good or bad. There is no channel through which they can express their views, because this agricultural measure was passed by the regime without any kind of discussion by the Advisory Council, which was a nominated council set up in 1933. This Council, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was, in the words of the Cyprus report of 1937, set up
in order that there might be a channel through which to obtain the views of the community on questions of legislation and other matters of importance affecting the relations of the Government and the people.
What irony! The views of the people are to be obtained through a nominated council, which is not even consulted. I can think of more efficacious methods of ascertaining the views of the people. I should have thought that it would have been better to return to the freedom of the Press and of discussion. There is another important particular in which the administration which the hon. and gallant Member opposite praises so much has failed. It has failed to repeal the Turkish landlords which have long been abandoned in Turkey itself. Last year I quoted from the Cyprus Annual Report of 1936 on this question, and the latest report, that for 1937, reproduces verbatim the paragraph from which I quoted. The Cyprus report of 1937 says:
The law on land is most complicated and land is divided into numerous classes. There are different laws governing the tenure and the transmission of each class, the laws of inheritance being different for Christians and Moslems. The amendment and simplification of the land laws has been studied by a Committee which submitted its report in 1934. The report is now under the consideration of the Government.
That was in 1936. It was again so in 1937, and no doubt it will be so in the 1938 report. British rule lags behind that of Turkey, when Cyprus belonged to Turkey 60 years ago under Abdul Hamid, who was one of the worst dictators ever known. What a reflection upon our own rule. These matters are not in the Blue Book, but the right hon.


Gentleman would do well to consider them when he talks of the undisturbed 56,000,000. The "Times" correspondent has stated that Cypriots unquestionably prefer British rule but feel that they really have no share in the British Commonwealth.

Colonel Ponsonby: Does the hon. Gentleman know the amount that was spent in bribery in the last three days of the last election?

Mr. de Rothschild: The bribery at the last election was before the 1931 election. I wonder why a trial cannot be made now to introduce some electoral measures in order to show that the Cypriots, who have developed there, ever since the Crusades, a civilisation approximating to ours, are fully capable of democratic government? Or are they to be in chains for ever?
I now turn to the Island of Mauritius. The right hon. Gentleman in his very interesting discourse said that he had appointed a certain number of East Indians to the Council of Mauritius. I suppose he includes the people of Mauritius among the 56,000,000 of happy people who live in the British Commonwealth undisturbed, in plenty, abundance and peace. I wonder whether that is so. I will try once more to speak about things which do not appear in the Blue Book. First, the dockers strike which occurred last September. The Port Louis dockers struck work because one man was dismissed for insubordination. The strikers demanded his reinstatement and also shorter hours and more pay. These are not unlike labour demands made in other parts of the world; there was nothing very extraordinary about them, but the "Times" reported on the 9th September that:
The Governor had broken the back of the strike and restored quiet to the island.
How was the strike broken? It was broken by the mobilisation of the military and the police. Mr. Anquetil, who was one of the leaders, was deported to Rodrigues Island, a minute island dependency of Mauritius, 360 miles away in the Indian Ocean. Two other leaders were parked away in some distant part of Mauritius. Besides these three leaders, 300 men were arrested and put into prison for a week and a state of emergency was declared for several weeks

on end. Were not these measures altogether out of proportion to the situation that had occurred? If they were not out of proportion, then I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the conditions in Mauritius were as bad as the conditions in the West Indies. When one reads the "Crown Colonist," a very ably conducted newspaper, it states in its March issue that:
Out of a population of 400,000 there were 100,000 unemployed and thousands were facing starvation.
There is no word of this in the Blue Book. I suppose these people are numbered among the 56,000,000 of undisturbed people who are living in abundance and peace in the British Commonwealth.
Nor is there anything in the Blue Book about the suppression of the Labour party in Mauritius. What are the facts? The Labour party in Mauritius was registered as a friendly society. That, apparently, was obligatory, according to the laws. During the labour troubles of 1937 the Procureur-General made an inquiry into the affairs of the Labour party. He decided that there had been illegal expenditure of the funds and ordered that the money should be repaid to the Government in six months' time. He did this on his own initiative and without any legal authority. The Labour party, a friendly society, ignored this illegal demand, and the result was that the Governor disbanded the party in January of this year. The members of the Labour party, a friendly society, contend that this, again, was done illegally.
I wonder what the views of the right hon. Gentleman are on the subject of these proceedings. The Blue Book does not tell us. Is no Labour party to be allowed to organise in Mauritius? or if it is allowed to be organised and established, must its activities, its existence, depend upon the arbitrary will of the Procureur-General?
I have spoken of Cyprus and Mauritius, but I suggest that those are not the only Colonies that raise doubt as to Britain's administration of our Dependencies. The Blue Book reiterates the Government's determination that we should on no account hand over to any other Power territory for which Britain is responsible either as a Colonial or Mandatory Power. I suggest to the right hon.


Gentleman that in order to carry out this policy— a policy in which I entirely and whole-heartedly concur and agree— we must remove every ground of reproach to our Colonial administration. The present discontent in Cyprus is noted in Berlin and Rome, and articles are being published in the German Press and used to feed anti-British propaganda. These two Colonies of which I have spoken in this way, because perhaps nobody else would, are not the only ones affected. There is evidence that our Colonial government lacks some of the old capacity and vision which made this country great in the past and enabled it to show its magnificent power in controlling other civilisations, native or otherwise. That is borne out by the number of incidents which are recorded in the Press, by reports of Commissions which go out and by the investigations of newspaper representatives.
The reputation of Britain as a Colonial power was built on magnificent achievements, and the right hon. Gentleman was fully justified in giving that fact due prominence. To-day scientists, doctors, engineers, veterinary surgeons and foresters are working with energy and devotion for the betterment of the people among whom their lives are cast. Behind those people in the old days there was statesmanship at the Colonial Office. The men in the Dependencies, the men on the spot, are to-day as capable as any men in the past. The Blue Book provides ample evidence of that. I wish it were also true of the statesmanship at home in the administration of the Colonial Office. The position in many parts of the Empire presents as great a problem as any we have had in the past, and I do trust that my right hon. Friend will put his shoulder to the wheel. He will certainly need all his skill and energy to rival what was done in the past by his predecessors, such men as the father of the present Prime Minister, the Duke of Devonshire and others, who left behind a great name in the Colonial history of this country.

6.25 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: The speeches which have been addressed to the Committee since my right hon. Friend sat down have shown a rather critical tone, and I find myself in sympathy with that tone. It
was quite natural that my right hon. Friend, in his most interesting review of the Colonial Empire, should— and the report does the same— take, on the whole, the rosiest possible view of what we are doing at the present time. No one can complain of that, but I fancy the spirit and the mind of this country in its anxiety lest we should not be carrying out this task to the best of our ability, have been more truly represented by the critical speeches that have been made. My own belief is that we have to watch very carefully and scrupulously to see that we are actually doing our best at the present time for the peoples of our Colonial Empire. Our record in some directions is admirable, but in other directions it is far from admirable; it is, I think, definitely weak.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) made a most interesting contribution on the question of system. There is no doubt that this House wants to play a much greater part in helping the Colonial Empire to sound and successful administration; and unless this House plays its part the stimulus and initiative will never be given. I am not disparaging either the Colonial Office or our great Colonial Service. It is not the business of civil servants to initiate, and it is not the business of the civil servants to look far ahead. Their business is to carry out the policy with which they are furnished by those who direct policy in this country, and the real responsibility rests with this House. When this House does intervene, it intervenes to some effect. The Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office have been congratulated on this report. The report was actually produced as the result of a suggestion made in this House. That is the way to get things done.
If we look at the history of the Colonial Empire and the history of India we see that the initiation of progressive measures comes from the House of Commons. It is to this House that we must look. How can we ensure that that initiative is more effective than at the present time? My right hon. Friend emphasised the fact, and it is true, that the interest of the House in Colonial questions is shown by the number of questions he has to answer on Wednesday afternoon, and by the supplementary questions which his replies


invariably evoke; but that is not really a satisfactory manner of dealing with Colonial affairs. We have to find something more effective and continuous so that these Colonial questions may be more deeply and more continuously explored than they can be by question and answer across the Floor of the House. I have often asked myself why it is that we have only applied the method of committees, with official responsibility, to the Estimates. Why cannot we develop that system? Has not the time come to develop that system in regard to the Colonial Empire? If there is an Estimates Committee, there ought to be a Colonial Committee. That is the right method. Other Legislatures have found it impossible to do their duty without establishing a system of that kind.

Mr. Boothby: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. Would he suggest that we should have a foreign affairs committee, a Colonial committee, and a finance committee?

Sir E. Grigg: I have always been in favour of the development of the committee system in this House, and I believe that it is desirable to develop it in other directions, but. particularly in regard to Colonial affairs. Foreign affairs are frequently debated, but Colonial affairs, apart from question and answer, are debated only once a year. We cannot possibly deal with these vast responsibilities in that way. It creates a false impression in the world and in the Colonies for which we are responsible when we pay so very little attention to them. I have noted again and again that those who live or have lived in those parts of the world feel that we are really neglecting them. They feel that attention is paid to them only when there is some row, when the State searchlight is projected on their part of the Empire for a short time and they stand out in much prominence, which they do not like, until the searchlight is switched somewhere else. That is not the way to deal with the administration of our Colonial Empire, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Prime Minister and the Government to go into this question and enable this House, through the medium of a committee, or a better medium if there is one, to play a more continuous part in inspiring and

stimulating the discharge of our responsibilities towards the Colonial Empire.
There is one other point to which I desire to refer. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) was very critical of our Colonial record on the economic side. I agree with him. I do not suppose that I should agree with him as to the cause, but I agree that on the economic side our discharge of our trusteeship is weak, and requires close attention at the moment. We are doing, at any rate for Africa, which I know better than any other part of our Colonial Empire, exactly what we did for many long years in India. We are developing a demand for progressive services of all kinds and higher standards which the economy of the country cannot stand or provide at present. I remember M. Clemenceau, the great French statesman, going to India very soon after he retired from office in 1922, and I remember speaking to him when he came back. His comment on India was extraordinarily interesting. He said that the Civil Service was magnificent, and that in the system of justice he could find nothing to criticise, but, he said, "I also felt that you had not done enough to enable the peoples of India to afford the benefits which you have conferred upon them." That is what we are doing in Africa at the present time. We are trying to put a magnificent superstructure on a foundation which will not carry it, and we have to be very careful on that point, because if we are not careful we shall quickly create discontent amongst the people for whom we are responsible, and aggravate problems which are already difficult.
I have only one question that I would like to put to my right hon. Friend. This is a vast subject, but I will confine myself to one point. When I was in East Africa I kept on asking myself the question how 12,000,000 people in that vast area— because that is the total population of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda— can be expected to carry the tremendous machinery of administration, the railways and roads, in addition to the demands of the progressive services which we have set up; how, if we expect them to do that, are we going to get from them without oppressive taxation the revenue needed for important services, and so on? This is germane to the point about wages


and everything else mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth. It is the whole economic situation that needs never saw any answer to that question investigation at the present time, and I except the answer which occurred to the first Colonial Governor in Kenya, which was the same answer which occurred to those who wanted to see economic progress in Palestine. We have got to bring in something; the thing is not there. It is agreed by everybody that in Palestine immense benefit has been done to the Arab population as well as to the rest by the enterprise, the capital and the labour, which have been brought in by the Jews; that, I think, is admitted in all parts of the House.
But that is not true of Palestine only; it is equally true, I think, of many empty parts of Africa. It is a very important question at the present time because we must remember that our trusteeship is a double trusteeship. The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition was right when he said that the first consideration is the paramount interests of the population of the country itself, but there is another side to it, and that is the interests of the world. That is a thing which has not to be neglected. It is the basis of Lord Lugard's classical work on Africa. We must always remember there are these dual aspects of trusteeship. We have to do our duty to the peoples of these places, but we have also to do our duty to the world; and at the present moment the world is scrutinising very closely whether we are actually doing our duty to it in these countries. I have been reading that criticism in a very interesting and level-headed book published in the United States. There is an opportunity at the present moment, and I am astonished to find practically no reference to it in the report.
There is available now a population for settlement which ought to be as useful and as fertilising as the old outflow of the Huguenots from France. That is the spirit in which we should look at it. What is there about it in this report? I understand that in East Africa at the present time the difficulties which are presented to any immigrant who wants to come in are almost insuperable. One or two cases have come my way and I have tried to intervene. I ask my right hon. Friend to correct me if I am wrong, but

the foolish part of it is this, that what with the money that has to be deposited when an emigrant comes in, what with the guarantees which have to be given about his or her employment for a period of years, what is actually happening is that instead of getting German refugees, we are getting only good German Nazis who are supported and financed? the German Government. What an insane policy to pursue? Apart from that, which, after all, is a special question upon which I may have exaggerated a little—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Before the hon. and gallant Member leaves that point may I interrupt for a moment? What is he suggesting that these new settlers who are to be injected into Africa should do?

Sir E. Grigg: Exactly what they do in Palestine. In the first place, they could establish a system of subsistence cultivation on the soil with their own labour. They should also bring in their own labour and establish small industries as they have done in Palestine.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not want to continue interrupting the hon. Member, but surely he is not comparing Palestine with East Africa?

Sir E. Grigg: I have no time to argue with my hon. Friend as to the differences between East Africa and Palestine, but I spent five years in East Africa and I think I know something of its possibilities, and I have no doubt whatever that there is room for the settlement of people with the right kind of enterprise and industry and financial support in East Africa at the present time. We are not entitled to take up a dog-in-the-manger attitude. If we do, we shall lose our moral right to control this vast territory. I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to say something more this evening than has been said either in his speech or in the report on this question of our duty to the refugees. I would quote just one sentence from the report:
The Kenya Government have admitted a number of refugees from Central Europe.
How many. I would like to know how many of these actually came in not as refugees but as new settlers supported by the German Government?

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon.


Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), and I find myself in considerable agreement with the point of view he has presented to the Committee. It is unfortunate that in this House we have only one opportunity for discussing the affairs of the Colonial Empire during the year, and in view of the innumerable problems which are presented I think we should have a little more opportunity of ventilating and discussing them. I will return in a moment to the suggestion which the hon. Member has made. First of all, I think the Committee is agreed that the report which the Colonial Secretary has presented to us does, in fact, represent a very massive and impressive amount of work in respect of the development of the Empire, but I agree with the criticism which has been repeatedly made that it presents a far too complacent view, and that it is far too uncritical in its approach to the various problems which are dealt with.
I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State on one or two innovations that he has made during the past year. I think the inclusion in the Colonial administrative service of women is a step in the right direction, and I am glad that he has had the courage to make a change which has been mooted for so many years. I think too, that the setting up of a Social Service department in the Colonial Office is also another step in the right direction. I hope that the department is not merely a reshuffling of existing departments; I hope it is a deliberate creation to deal with labour problems and the vast range of social services to which attention has been called this afternoon. Further, I would like to say how pleased I am that increasingly Colonial civil servants when they visit this country have the opportunity of coming in contact with other civil servants and pursuing further courses of study at Oxford.
There are one or two human points about the report which are worth noting, but the pity of it is that these human points are far too infrequent. There is the holding of the first baby show at Aden. The holding of another baby and health week at Sierra Leone is another human touch. Another is the refusal of Somali parents to allow their children to learn other than the Arabic language. There is also a picturesque phrase about education in Africa being an

upward column of moving water scattering its refreshing spray.
I would like to see a few more human points in this report because they enliven an otherwise somewhat dull record.
What did impress me as I read the report was the fact that we are apt to want our Empire too much on the cheap. One acknowledges with gratitude the contributions which have come from the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. They have been able to finance a great deal of research, social experiment, and so on, but it certainly is unbecoming that in many of our social experiments we have to rely largely on money from other parts of the world and that we as an Empire cannot afford to engage in a great deal of this elementary research. I would like also to remind the Colonial Secretary, when he spoke of the blessings which come from the Colonial Development Fund, that the British Exchequer are only spending, apart from loan, a comparatively small sum of money each year in the development of this vast estate.
One thing which I am sure is noticeable to all who have read the report is the new appreciation which is growing up among the Colonial peoples in respect of their own power in resisting the demands which are sometimes made on them from Whitehall. This was noticeable, for instance, in the Zanzibar dispute, which need never have occurred if proper advice had been taken. Far greater attention should be paid to the needs and requirements of the Indian population resident in various parts of the Colonial Empire. There was also a discovery of the power of combination in the case of the cocoa dispute in West Africa. That was a demonstration of the power of the Africans in resisting demands that were made on them. One could illustrate this point by referring to industrial disputes in other Colonies, as for instance the West Indies. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) that there is far too much complacency in regard to the happenings of the past year. The Secretary of State made a great deal of the point that only a comparatively small part of the population of the Colonial Empire is willing to revolt and make a nuisance of itself. There is self-congratulation on the constructive and peaceful development of the Colonial Empire and on the fact that there have been few


disturbances, but it seems to me that, when one recollects that in many parts of the Empire there are very disturbing blemishes and much social squalor, we ought to thank the people there for being so docile under our rule, exercising so much restraint, and not rising in revolt against the conditions in which they find themselves. There are places in the Empire which beggar description because of the misery and social squalor. At last, the Indians, the Africans and the West Indians are awakening and demanding that greater attention shall be paid to their needs. By the same post as I received the report, I also received a letter from a prominent African in Central Africa, ventilating certain grievances. He wrote:
We do not anticipate that this letter will have any effect, for we are convinced that nothing is likely to have any effect except the creation of a critical state of affairs, either by an armed rising, as in the case of Palestine, which is outside our power, or by a demonstration such as that staged by a certain African tribe some time ago.
I ask hon. Members to appreciate that at last these people are awakening and becoming conscious of their power if combination is permitted and they are properly organised. They are witnessing what is happening in other parts of the world. They see a frequent capitulation to violence which gets things done, while they see a neglect to deal with legitimate grievances when they are ventilated in a legitimate manner.
I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to a number of phrases that are constantly used in the report now before us. In the latter part of the report, the words "strike" and "disorders" are almost synonymous. To the Colonial Office, a strike is a disorder and has to be put down. Therefore, we are constantly presented with a situation in which people, when they strike, are repressed and prosecuted and their leaders deported, and the Colony transformed into a condition of emergency merely because a very simple industrial dispute has to be dealt with. Sometimes it is a dispute which has been simmering for a very long time and to which perhaps the local government have paid little attention.
Nevertheless, I welcome the increasing interest that is now being taken by the Colonial Office in labour matters. The

appointment of labour officers is all to the good, as is the creation of labour departments and the making of new ordinances for the protection of native labour. I ask that in making these appointments the utmost care should be taken, particularly in the case of the inspectors in the territories, to see that the right sort of people, who have some experience of labour matters, are engaged to do the work of inspection. I also ask the Colonial Secretary seriously to consider the appointment in some of the territories of women officers who have experience not merely of industrial matters, but also of social welfare matters. As to labour matters, I want to refer to a number of unfortunate features in various parts of the Colonies.
In certain Colonies, there has been an unfortunate increase in the habit, when a dispute occurs, of declaring a state of emergency; often, the emergency regulations were designed to meet the needs of a situation due to foreign attack. These regulations are now being used deliberately to suppress industrial disputes. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely has referred to Mauritius. In my opinion, the whole treatment of that dispute was most unfortunate. The dockers were men who were legitimately striking. A Commission had declared that they had legitimate grievances. Political and industrial expression had been denied to them. In spite of long-simmering grievances and the fact that a Commission, in reporting on those grievances, had justified the claim of the men that the grievances should be remedied, nothing had been done. When the men ventured to strike, the Governor declared a state of emergency; two or three hundred of the men were arrested, the leaders were deported and prosecutions were proceeded with in the case of a number of them. Fortunately, when the news arrived in this country, some of us were able to make a protest, and almost immediately the state of emergency was raised, the men were released, and 17 of them who were charged with participating in a dispute— in peaceful picketing— had their cases transferred to the Supreme Court. I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that when the Supreme Court adjudicated on the prosecutions of the lower court, it made it perfectly clear that there had been a complete outrage in the administration of justice and the men


ought never to have been sentenced. These 17 men had been sentenced to nine months' hard labour.
The same sort of thing happened in Barbados. There was a dispute, and at this moment a man is in prison there, serving a sentence of 10 years' hard labour, for organising his fellow men against oppressive conditions. Recently there was a case in Sierra Leone— the prosecution of a trade union secretary. After this man had been in prison for a month and eight days, his case was allowed to go to the Supreme Court. There was a special jury to hear the case. The Crown counsel challenged no less than 60 people as to their eligibility to serve on the jury; and therefore, one can say that by the time the case was taken, at least the right sort of jury had been empanelled to hear it. Nevertheless, although there was a mixed jury, when the case was taken the man was completely exonerated, and it was found that there was no foundation for the charge brought against him. I could go on giving one instance after another of prosecutions of this sort for alleged illegal action in organising people in industrial disputes.
There is an increasing practice of deporting the leaders merely because they have had the courage to stand up for the rights of their fellows. That happened in the case of Mauritius. The leader there, who was a person respected and frequently consulted by the Government on the spot, was sent 300 miles away merely because a legitimate grievance was not dealt with by the Government, and this man dared to urge the people to make themselves felt, as a strike was the only method of bringing their grievance to the notice of the authorities. This practice of deportation is becoming a habit. It occurred last year in Barbados, Kenya, Mauritius, and several other Colonies. There is also a restriction in regard to trade union action. It may be that certain new ordinances are being enacted to give the people opportunities of creating their own organisations, but too often the powers that are given for combination are far too limited to make combination effective. I need only refer to the Mauritius ordinance. This ordinance did not give real power to create effective trade unions, and its defects and limitations were obvious. It did not permit organisa-

tion to certain important classes of workers, and it prohibited certain types of industrial action. It is pretty general in many parts of the Colonial Empire not to allow peaceful picketing, and the officers of the trade unions are liable in respect of any damages arising from trade union action.
Why is it that the Colonial Office still permits in new ordinances, restrictions on the civil and industrial rights of the peoples of the Colonial Empire? In Sierra Leone, there has been a new spate of legislation designed to increase the powers of the Government in regard to the literature that may be read, in respect to deportation orders and trade union organisation. Recently, there was a new Sedition Law in Trinidad. If these Colonies have been able to get on for scores of years without this legislation being necessary, what new factors are there in the situation which require that these new ordinances of a repressive and restrictive kind should now be passed? Is it that at last the people are demanding that justice should be done, and therefore, it is necessary to put further checks on their powers of expression?
There is another point that I want to raise with regard to this matter. Those who have followed the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission on the West Indies will have seen that in the cross-examination of certain Government witnesses it was obvious that too often when directions are issued by the Colonial Office in London, those directions are altogether ignored. It seems that there is something missing between the Colonial Governments and the Colonial Office. When an ordinance is passed, do the Colonial Office ever call for a report as to how it is working? Is any attempt made to discover whether the necessary machinery has been created in order to give effect to the ordinance? It is pointed out in the report that at last the old policy of trusting completely to the man on the spot is to be buried by the Colonial Secretary in an effort to try to secure greater cooperation between the Colonial Office and the Colonial Governments, and greater central direction. If it is the will of the House and of the Colonial Secretary that there should be industrial enactments, that there should be the widest extension of civil liberty, that there should be a greater measure of


social services, then in all these respects there should be continual supervision by Whitehall to see that the directions are carried out and that the necessary machinery is created in order to carry them out. I would direct the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the case of workmen's compensation on the West Coast of Africa. Although a model ordinance has been going the rounds for the last two or three years nothing has been done, and every time one puts a question one is told that the matter is still under consideration. That really is not good enough.
Again, there is complacency in the report in regard to the social services. It is true that we can plead poverty. You cannot do things unless either the Colony has money or we ourselves are prepared to send capital into the Colonies. We are told in the report that there has been no retrenchment on social services of recent years. That probably is due to the fact that the social services in certain colonies have been so inadequate that retrenchment was very difficult. But there is another confession on page 5 that, in spite of peaceful conditions, the populations of quite a number of the Colonies live under primitive conditions and suffer seriously from preventable disease. There was for quite a period during the last six or seven years a stagnation in regard to social services because of the economic situation arising out of the slump of 1931. Now there is a new demand being made on the revenues of the Colonies, in respect to defence. It is of real importance that, because these new demands are being made, the social services should continue to expand and, if necessary, money should be found by our own Government in order that preventive work in medicine and other things should go on. It seems to me that Empire carries with it responsibilities not merely for the opening up of the natural resources of the colonial territories but also for the development of its human resources. A large number of cases have come to my notice during the past year where practically nothing is being done to meet the misery and suffering created by new conditions of employment and capital development in parts of Africa. With the development of mines, the sinking of new capital, the coming of new indus-

tries, great populations are on the move, and men come in from outlying districts to work, none of the amenities of towns and villages are established, the whole conditions remain as bad as possible, disease spreads and there are few of the ordinary social amenities on which ordinary community life can be lived. I could give numerous cases where there is no medical service, where the housing conditions are of the worst and nothing is being done in regard to education.
In regard to medical services, the hon. Member for Altrincham spoke of the possibility of utilising some of the great reservoir of human ingenuity due to the driving out of Central Europe of large numbers of Jews. An obvious need in our colonies is better health provision. I have pointed out to the Secretary of State the importance of creating an auxiliary medical corps for the colonies which might absorb dozens of the doctors and nurses who have been driven out of Germany and Austria and who are longing for an opportunity of performing useful work. Is it not possible to create, alongside the existing medical service, an auxiliary medical corps which can administer to the needs of the people, which can in places, for instance, man moving field dispensaries? You have populations suffering cruelly from disease, and great areas where nothing of a preventive character is being done. Is it not possible to use this great reservoir of skill and knowledge for the benefit of our African people? I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should seriously consider a suggestion of that kind.
Reference has also been made to the desirability at the earliest moment of extending the political rights of the native peoples, that they should learn to exercise self-government. It ill-becomes us that we should so frequently talk about freedom and democracy when we are not prepared, in certain colonies, to apply these principles to people who are clamouring for political rights and are able to exercise them. I was amazed to read in the report that a "constitutional development" had been brought about in Malta. We have torn up the democratic constitution. The people have no real semblance of local government; they are still denied the effective right of control over their local affairs. It seems preposterous that a change into a new and


undemocratic constitution, a change which has met with the whole-hearted opposition of a great section of the Maltese population, should be described as constitutional development. It is not constitutional development but a retrogade step from the old democratic standards which prevailed in days gone by.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Ely said in respect to the repressive practices and the social conditions in Cyprus and the demand there for some form of democratic government. One reads in the last issue— 31st May— of a Cyprus paper that the Commissioner called the editors of the Nicosia newspapers on Saturday last and instructed them not to publish any further reference to Cyprus politics, even in the form of articles produced from home newspapers. They therefore regretted that they were unable to publish some very interesting matter received over the week-end. What is behind this? What is the real purpose of it? You can only make a people free in so far as you are prepared to allow them to exercise the responsibilities of freedom. Are the Cyprus people so denuded of intelligence that they cannot take part in the intelligent discussion of their own affairs? I was quite happy when 1 read in the report that Cyprus was to have a museum for medieval antiquities. I thought the Colonial Office was preparing a lodgment for the present constitution of that Colony.
The position in the West Indies in regard to the political rights of the people is already known and I will not elaborate the absolutely disgraceful restrictive constitutions which are still allowed to operate in most of the islands. I put a question the other day in regard to Barbados, where they are celebrating this year their tercentenary, and suggested that this was an opportune moment to consider the limited constitution of that Colony. The Colonial Secretary seemed to think that there was no demand from West Indians whatever for a change, whereas every West Indian one meets is filled with the grievance about the denial of political rights and the demand that there should be an extension of democracy. The constitutions in the West Indies should be revised, and the people should be allowed to play a part in self-government. The right hon. Gentleman also said we were extending

the principles of democracy in several of the African Colonies. He referred to Tanganyika. The fact is that you are admitting into the Government of Tanganyika the white settler element and that element, as in Northern Rhodesia, tends to grow until it becomes the dominant interest which is advising and directing the Government, sometimes to the prejudice of African development. I suggest that, more and more, Africans should be permitted to participate in the management of their own affairs. In Mauritius again the right hon. Gentleman tells us certain small planters have been admitted into the Legislative Council. The facts are that the great mass of the people of Mauritius have been demanding representation in the Legislature for many years, and the temporary concession of representation of the small planter interest does not touch the problem at all. What we are concerned with is the great mass of the workers, who are completely unrepresented, and this most recent improvement of the constitution does not in any way give them a voice in the Government.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the white element in the Colonies should not be adequately represented and take their full share, because as a matter of fact the introduction of the white element means the introduction of what the hon. Member for Altrincham so desired, the introduction of capital.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not suggesting that the white element should not be represented in the colonial councils. What I am suggesting is that the great bulk of the people are almost completely unrepresented— at least there are no direct representatives— and we usually excuse ourselves by saying that they have not got men of suitable calibre to serve. I dispute that point. In the case of Kenya, where there is no native in the Legislature, and the Africans have to content themselves with white representatives, there are at least 50 Africans of an educational standard and experience and ability to speak on behalf of their people who might quite well be considered for representation. What I am really asking is that, more and more, the African should be permitted to be trained in the art of government and allowed to take his place on the various councils.

Sir E. Grigg: I am sure the hon. Member realises that the highly educated African who is very much in advance of the rest of the people is not usually regarded by them as a suitable representative.

Mr. Jones: There are a number of representative bodies actually operating in Kenya who claim to represent a very big population of Africans in certain tribes. I am merely suggesting that these people should have an opportunity of becoming articulate so far as African native interests are concerned.
With regard to the economic section of the report, the hon. Member for Altrincham has expressed very much what I feel myself. Here there are some fundamental problems involved and they are scarcely discussed at all. We have two systems operating. In one case the "open door" is practised and in the other the open door is gradually being closed, or certain restrictions are imposed. It seems to me that in this, whether we like it or not, just ground for offence is being given to certain of the nations in Europe who, in their turn, are claiming the right to colonies. If our economic policy is directed towards securing certain advantages for ourselves, it follows naturally that these other nations in their turn, will say that there is no reason why they should be shut cut from similar economic opportunities. I suggest that we need to look afresh at the economic principles which underlie the organisation and running of our Colonial territories.
The recent Orders in Council in Kenya raise a very difficult and intricate problem which has been discussed before on many occasions. The policy of the Morris Carter Report is now being implemented, which means that at this moment large groups of natives are being torn out of the soil to which they have been attached for generations. It is clear that in certain of the recommendations of the Morris Carter Report inadequate attention was given to the nature and extent of the problem. Nevertheless, these recommendations are now being implemented by the ordinances of last year, as well as by the recent Orders in Council, and this is creating an infinite amount of bitterness and of suffering to people who have been attached to the land for many years. I suggest that the Minister should make it well known that,

as far as approval has been given to this policy, in the opinion of this House, the policy of clearing out the natives from the European Highlands must be carried out with the utmost caution. If these people have to be moved, then land of a suitable character must be found for them elsewhere and adequate compensation must be paid for disturbance. I object to the whole policy because it is creating race discrimination in Kenya. We may not declare it in our legislation, but we carry it out in our administrative acts. It is a policy which cuts right across all the great liberal declarations of previous statesmen and it is a most unfortunate policy to apply in Kenya at the present time.
Finally, in reference to the Hailey Report, I ask that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Altrincham should be seriously considered by the Colonial Office. It is obvious that the present arrangements for discussing Colonial problems are inadequate. Lord Hailey makes it clear, in the light of his examination of the question and after consultation with experts, that there should be machinery to enable this House to exercise a greater supervision and that some better sense of direction should be given to Colonial policy. He suggests a standing committee. I do not know whether that is possible, but it is a problem which calls for the careful attention of the Government. I hope that during the coming year some new approach will be made to it with a view to devising some constitutional method, whereby this House can exercise more supervision over Colonial policy.
Our discussions are limited. There are many other questions which I would like to raise to-night. I have already exceeded my time. I conclude by expressing the hope that the present Colonial Secretary will, at least, be faithful to those great ideals of liberal statesmanship which have been proclaimed from time to time in the past 100 years. We look for greater drive in Colonial policy; we hope that more money will be spent in the extension of social services and more attention given to the demands for political reform. As soon as possible the people of our Colonies should be enabled to stand on their own feet against the strenuous competition of the modern world and take a larger share in the government of their own territories.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I promise faithfully that I will not detain the Committee long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!") I thank hon. Members for that applause, but I hope I am not to interpret it as expressing a desire that I should sit down again very speedily. I associate myself with the view which has been expressed by hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and others that we should have greater opportunities for dealing with Colonial matters. I recommend to the hon. Member who has just sat down this consideration— that it is within the power of his hon. and right hon. Friends above the Gangway, to have another day's discussion on the Colonial Office Vote. That is a matter which rests with the Opposition, and I think it is reasonable that in choosing the subjects for other Supply Days, they should ask for at least one more day to discuss Colonial questions. I would not associate myself, however, with any idea of carrying the discussion of Colonial matters into some secret back room upstairs, where party controversy would be stilled and publicity would be made imposible. The value of discussion here is that the news of it goes out to the world and to the Colonies affected. It would not, to my mind, be a good substitute to have a secret meeting upstairs from which private representations would be made to the Minister. With that reservation, I am whole-heartedly in favour of the demand for more frequent and serious discussions on Colonial issues.
The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made a point which appealed to me. He said that one problem of Colonial administration was that of seeing that the resources were available to meet the cost of developing the social services and that steps should be taken to encourage the production of wealth in the Colonies so that the development of social services might be advanced. Just when the hon. Member had made those remarks I had occasion to go to another part of the building and in my journey I came across a copy of one of to-day's evening papers. I studied the market page which is always of considerable interest to me, and it seemed to me that an answer to the problem which the hon. Gentleman had posed to the Committee was to be found in that page. The headline in thick black type was:
Demand for Trinidad Oil Shares.

It stated that
there was a better tone in the market today. During the afternoon oil shares became brighter, the Trinidad group coming into favour.
Last year when we were discussing this Vote, the Trinidad group was not in favour. The oil workers had been kicking up their heels and demanding better conditions and a Colonial Governor had supported them. He was recalled and a commission was appointed, and things have rather settled down, so that to-day we read that the market is much brighter and that Trinidad oils have come into favour. I also read:
Gains were also registered by Unilever.
I think they operate in the Colonial field.
South African breweries reached the high figure of 106s. 3d.
That seems to be pretty good. Then:
Kaffirs sagged a little.
But that is only temporary; they will recover.
Rhodesian coppers were better and De Beers were"—

Sir E. Grigg: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss the value of shares in the Dominions during a Debate on the Colonial Office Vote?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): I understood the hon. Member was only using this as an illustration.

Mr. Maxton: I am trying to reply to the hon. Gentleman's argument and it is most ungrateful of him, of all people, to intervene in that way. He raised the problem of how to finance social development in the Colonies. He thinks it is to be done by getting more industries developed. I suggest that if the wealth which is at present produced there by the workers were not transported to London—

Sir E. Grigg: There are no oil wells in East Africa.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were not limited to East Africa, and I have no doubt that on other days I might find something in the market pages about Kenya copper. The same problem arises all over the Colonies. Wealth is produced there, but all the profits of it come home here. I desire, however, to leave the general question of Colonial administration, having entered this caveat— that if the workers could get


the wealth which they produce, they might be able to manage to have their social services and decent wages as well.
I wish to direct a few remarks to the problem of Sierra Leone. I received a cablegram last week addressed to me and to others in this House, about a great protest meeting against legislation that is being imposed by the Council in Sierra Leone. There had arisen a certain amount of discontent among the natives who were demanding better conditions and the first thing that was done was to clap two Labour leaders into gaol— in the name, I suppose of increasing democracy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with his heredity and his earlier associations, will not believe that when a Labour movement begins to develop in any part of the Colonial Empire, it is something which must be stamped out at once. I hope he will not take the view that Labour agitators are poisonous people against whom Sedition Acts, and Deportation Acts, and anti-trade union Acts must be applied. I hope he will not regard as a satisfactory answer the Written Answer which he gave to-day to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) and which the hon. Member has given me the opportunity of seeing. It seems to me to be just a little disingenuous to tell the House that this thing is all right, just because the Legislative Council has approved of it. This is a Legislative Council upon which there are only three elected representatives. The rest are official or nominated representatives, and they have approved an Order which denies to the trade unions the right of peaceful picketing and makes the trade union funds liable, as they were in this country in earlier days. That is the point round which one of the biggest trade union fights in this country centred — the liability of trade union funds for actions in the courts by employers. The principle which was established here is being denied in Sierra Leone. Then there is a Deportation Bill which entitles the authorities to seize anybody who is inconvenient—
It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

JARROW CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Levy: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day three months."
It is a good many years since some hon. Friends and I tried to find out what all these private Bills really meant, and in a number of instances we have, by negotiation, caused the deletion of undesirable Clauses; and it has been very rare when a Bill has been opposed on the Floor of this House. Certainly it has been very rare when we have opposed a Bill on Third Reading. I do not propose to oppose this Bill in the true sense of the word— [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why waste time?"] The answer to that is that this Bill includes novel provisions, and I think that instead of it going through, as it might have gone through, silently, without the majority of Members knowing of these new provisions, I should point out that the report of the Committee on Unopposed Bills has most properly directed the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill contains provisions of a very novel and unusual character, involving, I believe, an important new principle in municipal powers. I submit that these provisions and this principle are undesirable in a Bill of this kind, and when I say that, I am expressing my own views. The reason is that they hold enormous potentialities for the general extension of municipal trading.
I would ask the House particularly to look at Clauses 5 to 9. Clause 5 empowers the corporation to acquire by agreement land for development, disposal, or utilisation in the provision of sites and premises in connection with the establishment or extension of industries within the borough. This, I submit, is a very great extension of the existing scope of municipal powers. It is true that the corporation may not exercise these powers without the consent of the Minister, but I doubt the wisdom of creating these municipal powers even with the safeguard of the Minister's approval. Clause 6 goes still farther. It


provides that if the corporation should not be able to acquire land within the borough on what they consider to be reasonable terms, the Minister may, by provisional order, authorise them to acquire the land compulsorily. Then Clauses 7 and 8 give the corporation, again subject to the approval of the Minister, wide powers of development, including the erection of buildings on the land. But one of the most important Clauses is Clause 9, which gives the corporation power to advance money out of the local rates to the purchaser or lessee of any lands acquired from the corporation for the purpose of enabling him to erect shops, houses, factories, warehouses, offices, or other buildings or to adapt or alter existing buildings. I cannot find that the lending of the ratepayers' money for private industrial enterprise is subject to any approval of the Minister or anybody else except the corporation.
The supporters of the Bill try to justify the Measure on the ground that Jarrow is a special case. I do not deny for a moment that Jarrow is a hard case— [An HON. MEMBER: "You are a hard case"] — a case where a distressed community is entitled to special treatment, but I do feel that this is an instance which illustrates the wisdom of the old saying "Hard cases make bad laws." If the Bill goes through in this form, we shall be creating a dangerous precedent in the expansion of municipal enterprise and trading. It is all very well to say, as may be said, that future cases can be treated on their merits, that the powers given to Jarrow may not be given to other places merely because a precedent has been established, but every Member of this House knows, and every Member who has had anything to do with municipal corporations' Bills knows, how difficult it is to resist the extension of the application of a new principle once it has been recognised and applied in any one case. From my own experience I can easily see a flood of other corporation Bills coming along if this one passes, all of them seeking these powers, on grounds that would be difficult to dispose of once the principle had been established. [Interruption.] I have promised not to take more than eight minutes. I had prepared a speech that would have taken about three-quarters of an hour, but as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) and the

hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) know, we have arranged between us that there shall be no Division on this Bill. I am, however, entitled to express my views, and in order to save time I am dealing with my notes instead of trying to elaborate them. I therefore claim the indulgence that the House gives to an hon. Member in such circumstances.
An important argument for the Bill is that part of the land in the borough is leased in small plots and that this and local circumstances makes the getting of the land for the extension of existing industries and the introduction of new industries difficult and, therefore, discouraging to enterprise. Therefore, it is argued by the Jarrow Corporation that the provision of land must be specially facilitated. But what does that mean? It means that in order to give private enterprise a limited advantage in one direction, that is, by making it very simple to get the land in Jarrow for industrial development, many other forms of private enterprise will be at a disadvantage on account of these wide powers of municipal trading that are given to the corporation here. I hope the hon. Lady will not contend that without these powers land cannot be got in Jarrow at all for private industrial development. The suggestion is that the man who contemplates putting a factory there may think twice about it, that he may be discouraged or go elsewhere, because he may have to negotiate with a large number of people, whereas if this Bill becomes law, as I have no doubt it will, it will simplify matters, because he will be able to deal with one body, namely, the Jarrow Corporation. That argument, which can be and is used, can, I think, be overdone, but in any case we are asked in this Bill— and here I am expressing my own opinion— to create a precedent and to recognise and apply a principle, the end of which no one can foresee, a precedent and a principle which constitute too high a price to pay for the possible advantages that may be given to Jarrow. I say "the possible advantages." They might prove not to be advantages at all, because if such powers were not exercised in the most careful and businesslike way, the financial burdens already placed on Jarrow might well be enormously increased, and its position at the end might be even worse than it is to-day.
I have approached this matter from an economic rather than a political point of view, but I am bound to say that I have no particular faith in Socialist municipal trading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say that in all sincerity. I have no faith whatever in Socialist municipal trading, and this Bill will give enormous new potentialities. [Interruption.]. I listen patiently to speeches in this House, and I fail to see the object of this barracking. There are things which are done in this House and things which are not done, and barracking in a case like this is something which is not done. There is one last point, namely, that the consent of the Minister to the exercise of these powers is rather a doubtful safeguard. Ministers come and go, and a Socialist Minister will provide no brake at all on these enterprises. I would much prefer not to place in the hands of any one Minister the great powers of authorisation which this Bill provides. In conclusion, having regard to the fact that Jarrow is a Special Area, that it does desire and require sympathetic treatment, instead of opposing this Bill, as we ordinarily would oppose it, and take it to a Division, we are not taking it to a Division; but let it be understood by all Parliamentary agents that if powers of this kind are sought to be obtained in other Bills by local authorities, we will not only oppose them as strenuously as we can. but we will always take them to a Division.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to assure the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) that there is no lack of sympathy for the state of Jarrow, and especially for the unemployment in Jarrow, but we feel that this Bill raises a special point and that it raises also a question of fairness as between areas of severe unemployment inside and outside the Special Areas of this country. By Clause 6 power is given compulsorily to acquire land, under the usual procedure, by Section 160 of the Local Government Act, 1933. That is a procedure which in the ordinary way is restricted to the acquisition of land for purposes of public health and to special statutory occasions. This Bill seeks power to acquire land compulsorily for industrial purposes. I think I am right

in saying that the usage in such cases is to confine it to power to acquire specific land or land whose primary use is of a different character. Therefore, we have to consider whether this Bill is justified in the circumstances.
In Clause 7 there are powers to develop the land; the corporation is to be empowered to erect not only ordinary buildings but factory and industrial buildings and the like; and one presumes that after erecting them it would be able to let them to those who desire to use them. In Clause 9 there is the further power to make advances to those who may either acquire or lease the buildings up to three-quarters of the value of their interest in the premises. If they stopped there those would be wide powers, but one has to remember that Section 6 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act applies to Jarrow, and the industrialist who goes there— for whom the land is acquired by the corporation and for whom the buildings may be put up— may receive an advance in respect of the adaptation of those buildings or receive an advance for erecting buildings himself. He can also go to the Treasury under Section 6 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act and get a further advance, and further financial help for equipping his factory premises and erecting his plant.
That is a tremendous advantage which is given to Jarrow, and I ask the hon. Lady, who I know feels sincerely about her own constituents, to realise how difficult the position becomes for those like myself and the hon. Member opposite, who represent a city like Liverpool, where there is the most tremendous and grimmest concentration of unemployment that you can find in any similar small area in the country. What chance will areas like that have if Jarrow in addition to the advantages it receives under general Acts dealing with the Special Areas, is to be empowered by private legislation to make the special provisions which I have outlined? The Liverpool Act of 1936, in Section 27, only goes so far as to enable an advance of two-thirds of the value to be made to those who are going to acquire the land and erect buildings there. There are not the other powers which are in Clauses 6 and 7 of this Bill; and, of course, that area has not the general advantages of the Special Areas legislation.
Therefore, I hope that hon. Members opposite will appreciate that in raising this point we are not only raising a point of importance, but putting forward for the consideration of the House the position which will arise if the course now being pursued by Jarrow is followed by other areas which are just outside the Special Areas. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will give us some guidance upon whether this policy of compulsory acquisition of land for industrial purposes is to become a general policy. I quite appreciate the position in Jarrow, that the land there is divided into a number of small plots, but the process of acquisition by agreement should go a long way to meet that position. I hope that the House will realise that it is an important aspect of the matter that we have put before it, and that we shall get some guidance from the Ministry of Health not only as regards the case of Jarrow, but as to the method of dealing with similar problems in future.

7.51 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I do not complain in the least that hon. Members who feel strongly about the new principles which are introduced should bring them for debate in the House, but I would point out that on each occasion when they have met the objectors the promoters of the Bill have done their best to meet the objections put forward. I became really very worried as to whether we were not giving away far too much, and when I knew that I should have to speak upon it, I felt inclined to plead that the Bill, like the chambermaid's baby, was only a very little one. After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) I almost find myself in a congenial position as "flaming in the van of red revolution." Really I do not think the House need get so excited as the hon. Member for Elland would suggest, because the whole purpose of this Bill is to meet a very special difficulty. I say frankly that I do not want to claim for Jarrow a consideration that no other area should have. If any other area wants the same powers my only feeling is to say, "Good luck to you." But that is not my concern. My job is to look after my constituency, and while it is true that hard cases make bad law it is surely true that hard cases need special consideration, and ought to be looked into to see

whether something cannot be done to relieve the situation.
If we generalise and regard Jarrow as an illustration of a difficulty, the difficulty of which it is an illustration is that it is a very old industrial centre. Coal was actually mined there in 1612, and it has been an area of continuous capitalist development since 1803. Great industries have been built up there. The Jarrow pit was one of the largest pits in the county. Then there was the great shipbuilding industry, but that was snuffed out by National Shipbuilding Securities Limited. It is an area which, because of its fine industrial position, has been built on and overbuilt on with each wave of capitalist enterprise in this country. And so, in 1931, we have a position where the density of its population, not in its most crowded district but over the whole borough, was 46 to the acre, though in another comparable area it was only 40. It is an urban area where there is no land available for the new industries which they are trying to bring into the town, except the one special site of Palmers' shipbuilding yard. That has been acquired by the Special Commissioner, and for reasons which the Corporation and I think are very wise he does not want that magnificent site, which Lord Runciman described as one of the finest industrial sites in the world, split up into a number of small sites for small industries, when it might be used for a much bigger purpose at some time or other. That is the stone wall which the Jarrow Corporation find themselves up against.
Owing to the vast publicity which Jarrow has had it has received inquiries from people who were willing to start businesses in that area, but the problem was where to put them. There are certain sites in slum clearance areas but they are an eyesore of the worst kind. We have no power to clear them. We have power only to order the landlords to pull down the houses and there they are— brickfields, eyesores. Most of them are not fit sites for houses. The houses are being built on a new estate which is outside the Parliamentary boundary but is now inside the borough. What is to happen to those sites? Are they to remain for ever as an eyesore, just places where the children play and break their knees as they run about on those awful piles of bricks? Is it sense to leave things


like that? If not, then what can we do? We had an inquiry for a site for an industry to be set up there, and one of these areas was suggested as a possible place. What happened? It was found that 65 separate leaseholders would have to be dealt with, some of whom had left the town and some of whom could not be traced. It was a most complicated position. No one could expect that an industrialist would want a site when the first thing he would have to do would be to set his lawyers on the job of tracking down 65 leaseholders, in order to buy them out before he could start to put up his factories. We should be in the next slump but one before he had got any further with his undertaking.
Therefore, we say that the job of dealing with this land is one for the town council. If they have compulsory powers they can do things which an industrialist without any compulsory powers, without any powers at all, cannot do. Surely even the most reactionary, shell-back Tory cannot imagine that we could allow the present condition of affairs to go on, saying that in the name of some sacred principle of not extending municipal powers we must leave the present mess as it is. Would the hon. Member for Elland come to Jarrow and say that to men who have been unemployed for 10 years? Would he go into his own constituency and defend having done it at Jarrow? I am sure he would not. But that is the position in which anyone finds himself who tries to apply dogmatically his prejudices to the existing situation.
Is this precedent so dangerous after all? One would have to search with a microscope to find the differences between this Bill and the Liverpool Corporation Bill, 1921. Corporations now have power to apply surplus land to industrial purposes. Several corporations have power to get specific pieces of land for specific purposes. The real difference, the great revolutionary difference which has shocked the hon. Member for Elland to his soul, is simply that we ask that Jarrow shall be allowed to acquire land without having in mind a specific purpose, but for general industrial purposes, and then proceed to develop it naturally. Even so we have tied ourselves up to the Minister of Health until it looks to me as though, when we get on with this particular job, I shall have

to spend most of my life on the doorstep of the Ministry of Health, and no one can imagine a worse fate than that. We have to be continually asking for his consent. The thing is safeguarded up to the hilt, and even on top of that the Bill is made temporary. What is the vast revolutionary principle of that? I am very glad that the opponents of the Bill have said that they will not take it to a Division. That takes the sting out of the Debate to a certain extent, and I am really concerned to plead that it is not merely necessary to regard Jarrow as a special case, but to plead with certain hon. Members opposite to live in the century in which they were born and to realise that we have to make alterations, particularly in these industrial areas, to meet the difficulties created by their age and position.

8.1 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): On these comparatively rare occasions on which as Chairman of Ways and Means it is my duty to address the House, I always think that I ought to explain exactly what is my position. It is my duty in the matter of these Private Bills to see that both sides have fair play, and when the Bill comes for discussion in the House it is also my duty to see that the House has before it the actual issue on which it has to vote, and that hon. Members know what they are doing and what is their duty. In this case the Jarrow Bill, as first introduced, was undoubtedly of a very unusual character, and the Ministry of Health issued a memorandum in regard to it which showed how very unusual it was. As a result of that memorandum the promoters made very extensive alterations to the Bill, and considerable Amendments. The Bill was unopposed, in the sense that there was no petitioner against it, and, as most hon. Members know, unopposed Bills are perhaps looked on with almost more suspicion— if I may use that word — or care than opposed Bills, and it is the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means to scan unopposed Bills in order to see that there does not slip through some legislation contrary to the general traditions and ideas of the House.
For many years it has been the custom for the Committee on unopposed Bills to be presided over not by the Chairman of Ways and Means but by his Deputy. In particular cases, and the


Jarrow Bill undoubtedly was one that I had to regard as a particular case, I have regarded it as my duty to take the Unopposed Bills Committee. No doubt, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, being accustomed to that Committee, was far more capable of doing that work thoroughly than I was, but the Committee did not suffer from the fact that I took charge of it, because the Deputy-Chairman was also present as a member of the Committee. I only mention these facts because I want the House to understand that the greatest possible attention was given to this Bill when it came before the Unopposed Bills Committee.
The Bill came before that Committee with a further memorandum from the Ministry of Health, the effect of which was, shortly, that the Ministry saw no objection to the Bill in its amended form. The Committee, however, being perhaps as suspicious of a Government Department as of promoters or opponents of Private Bills, went into the matter with very great care. As the House will know from the special passages in the report of the Committee, they made certain alterations therein and they made reference in their report to matters to which they thought the special attention of the House should be called. The great point of principle in this Bill, to which my hon. Friend has referred, is undoubtedly the powers which the Bill proposes to confer on the corporation of Jarrow to acquire, develop and dispose of land for industrial purposes. The Committee felt it their duty, and it is of course my duty now, to leave matters of that kind to the House to decide. I hope it will be understood that I am not endeavouring to persuade the House one way or another, or to persuade hon. Members as to what view they should take on the question whether they should agree or not to these powers being given. But it is my duty to point out the special circumstances and the restricted form in which these powers will be given if the Bill is given the Third Reading in the form in which it is before the House.
Incidentally, may I here refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) in regard to the restrictions placed on the exercise of certain powers by the Jarrow Corporation in that they would only be exercised with the consent of the Minister. He seemed to think that was a matter which depended on the

Minister for the time being alone. I would remind him, and the House, that the great point of powers of this kind being exercisable only with the consent of the Minister is that they are only exercisable with the consent of a Member of the Government who is answerable to this House, and can be called to account in this House for any consent he may give or refuse and any action he may take in regard thereto. Therefore, when these powers are given subject to the consent of a Minister of the Crown, they are given with a certain preservation of the powers of this House in regard thereto.
As I have said, the principle which this Bill contains, and which is unusual, is that of giving the corporation the power of acquiring, developing and disposing of land for industrial purposes. My hon. Friend has already mentioned some of the restrictions on that power. I should tell the House of certain other restrictions. I would like to tell them shortly, if I may, of the alterations made in the Bill in the Committee stage. In the first place, the Committee required an alteration in the Preamble of the Bill in order to show that the reason for this Bill was the special reason of the condition of Jarrow as a Special Area. In addition to that, they put in the very important proviso that this Bill should only continue in force— subject to a minimum period of five years, which is really necessary for practical purposes— so long as Special Area legislation of the kind which we know about is in operation, and so long as Jarrow is a Special Area within the meaning of that legislation.
The House ought to understand that the circumstances in which the promoters of the Bill have asked for these powers are that they are required for the purposes of one of the duties of the corporation, the amelioration, to the greatest extent that they can do it, of the peculiar difficulties in regard to unemployment and distress in their area; that the powers are asked for subject to certain provisions which absolutely prevent the corporation from indulging in municipal trading, in the ordinary sense of the term, in such a way as to risk the ratepayers' money; that the powers are only given subject to the restriction which has been referred to in regard to the consent of the Minister; and that they are given in such a way that they are limited to the period during which Jarrow remains in the position of a Special Area such as we know it at the


present time. I think that is really all that it is necessary for me to say on the subject, and I must leave it to the House whether, in the particular circumstances of the case and with the particular and very stringent safeguards which have been introduced into the Bill, hon. Members will regard this as a case in which these unusual powers should be granted, under special restrictions, for a limited period, and in special circumstances to a local authority which is in the peculiar position in which Jarrow, and unfortunately certain other areas, stand at the present time.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Usually one has to accept what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said with due respect, even when one feels tempted to disagree with him. But I am sure that this evening the House will feel that the right hon. Gentleman has discharged with singular ability and acceptance to the House the difficult duty that the House places on him on these occasions. He has made plain to the House the precise and narrow points which are involved in this Measure. I do not object in the slightest to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe)bringing the matter before the House. The circumstances are such that those Members of the House who wish at this hour to be present to listen to our discussion should have an opportunity of ascertaining exactly what the points are that are submitted to the House. This is a Private Bill and hon. Members are free to vote in any way they think fit. I have noticed this with regard to the activities of the hon. Member and his friends, that while there are few occasions on which they stage a Debate on a Private Bill, as sure as my name gets on the back of a Bill they have a Second or a Third Reading Debate. That happened on the Guildford Corporation Bill and on every Bill the Surrey County Council has brought in. The hon. Member for jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) is not the only person who represents Jarrow in this House; I am a kind of sleeping partner in the concern. When I have placed my name on the back of a Bill it seems that it is a circumstance that arouses suspicion in the hon. Member for Elland and in his hon. and learned Friend.
I would put this point to the House: I have heard people outside, who do not have the opportunities that we have of understanding the real difficulties of the Special Areas, say, "Why don't these people do something to help themselves?" Here is a case of one of the distressed areas, perhaps the most distressed area of England, attempting to help itself. It is faced with extraordinary and peculiar difficulties. Less than 100 years ago Jarrow consisted of 700 people. The coming of Palmer's shipyard meant the growth of that population to 35,000 people within a very few years. The town was built, as were all the Tyneside towns, with absolute disregard of anything such as we now call town-planning. People were placed on the Tyneside in a way which no one would defend to-day. They were encouraged to buy small plots of land on which to erect their own houses. Then came the time when National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, bought Jarrow shipyard, which had produced some of the finest vessels that ever sailed under the British flag, and it decreed that for 42 years no ship should be built there. By that one act they destroyed the opportunities for livelihood of every one of the 35,000 people, and not merely theirs but that of other people in the adjoining boroughs along the Tyneside.
That situation presents a problem which none of us would like to have to face, although many of us have had much experience in local government. I hear my friends in Surrey talking about the difficulties and the expenses of local authorities. They have a 1d. rate that produces over £ 50,000 and a rateable value of over £ 10 per head of the population. I sometimes ask them: "If your job is difficult, how would you care to tackle the job of Jarrow and South Shields?" Only the most gallant spirits can continue to struggle against the overwhelming adversities that have, quite undeservedly, fallen on that area. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis) during his period as High Sheriff of Surrey, did what he could to assist this town and is still carrying on with some of the work, but it is not sufficient to meet the problem. The hon. and learned Member for West Derby seemed to think that these powers were not necessary. He said that in dealing with these sites you could get a long way by agreement.


When you want to acquire a site for industrial development and you come across a plot of which you either cannot discover the owner or the owner refuses to sell and sees his property steadily increasing in value to the prospective purchaser as the adjoining plots round about it are bought, you come to the stage at last when you must have some compulsion to make the job feasible at all. I know also, in negotiation by agreement, the power that resides in you when there is compulsion in the background. I am sure that in the course of his legal experience the hon. and learned Member must have come across cases in which the existence of compulsory powers has enabled a reasonable agreement to be made with a person whom he would not have defended in respect of the price being asked for the last bit of land necessary to round off a scheme.
True, the Jarrow Corporation have gone rather beyond what is usually the practice in Bills submitted to this House. The House will have gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that the claims for those powers have been most carefully examined, not merely by the inquisitors who sit in one of the rooms upstairs with the hon. Member for Elland, and call municipalities in front of them and tell them how much they are prepared to let them have, but by the Unopposed Bills Committee, which had the exceptional advantage of being presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means and being reinforced by the presence of the Deputy-Chairman as well as Members from all parts of the House. After carefully examining the proposals, the Committee has come to the conclusion that, in the special circumstances of Jarrow which I have related and which are well known to the House, it is desirable that these powers should be available. I imagine that we want to see these communities preserved and placed on their feet as soon as possible. It surely can be no offence to Tory doctrine that municipal corporations should preserve themselves and place themselves on their feet by a little self-help.
I suggest to the House that the Bill should be regarded as a sign on the part of the people of Jarrow of faith in their own future and their own destiny. I have spent some time on Tyneside and I know the disheartening effect on men of 12, 13 or 14 years of steady unemploy-

ment, especially when they have given much of their lives to the building up of a great industry like Palmer's shipyard and have seen people from an outside district come and destroy everything that made life worth living. I hope that the House will see this Bill of the Jarrow Corporation as an act of faith in their own future and one that deserves our support, and that we shall allow them to have these powers by which they may take the steps they desire to put themselves once again in the forefront of the industrial districts of the country. I sincerely hope that we shall not merely negative the hon. Gentleman's proposal and I make an appeal to him that, having heard the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means and of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, he should withdraw his Motion and let the House send a message to Jarrow assuring this depressed district not merely of our interest in her but our pride that she is taking steps to help herself.

8.24 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): It is desirable that I should express the view of the Government on this Bill because, after all, it is upon the Minister of Health that a great many of these powers are conferred. In the first place, we have every reason to express our gratitude to those who have accorded to the House the occasion for the Debate this evening. It is true that powers of a somewhat unusual nature are being asked for and that, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has said, they were brought to the notice of the Committee by a note from the Minister of Health and to the notice of the House by a note from the Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means in his speech, quite properly, if I may say so, gave no lead to the House as to whether these powers should be conceded or not, and it is for those of us who are in responsible positions to give such lead as we can to the House on the matter. Admittedly the powers are unusual, but I think it is fair to say that the powers have been modified very considerably as compared with those sought by the corporation when the Bill was introduced, that the corporation have done their utmost to meet all possible objections, and that the reasonable demands which are now brought before the House must be conceded if the experiment is to be tried at all.
I come now to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool (Mr. Fyfe). He said that a lead was desired as to whether these powers were to be conceded generally or not. That was the main burden of his remarks. But I think it is clear from the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), from the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and, indeed, from all the speeches we have heard this evening, that this is not a case of asking for general powers, but a case in which an attempt is being made to clear up a particular problem. The hon. Member for Jarrow stressed that point insistently. We must all admit that, where a large number of scattered plots are spread throughout a town, the problem of the local authority, if they wish to encourage industrial development, is very difficult. We all know that in old established industrial areas the ownership of the land is often divided between the owners of a great number of small parcels which it is very difficult to combine unless some super-authority of one kind or another is willing to undertake the responsibility. In this case, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has pointed out, the Corporation of Jarrow are willing to undertake that responsibility for themselves.
I think it is desirable that these powers should be conceded, and I would invite the House to-night to concede them. The consent of the Minister, which is required, is by no means a simple matter of rubber-stamping. Those who have had to do with local authorities of one kind or another know very well that it is not a question merely of the whim of some particular occupant of the office, but of close, meticulous examination by a great Department acting as trustee, not merely for the interests of the inhabitants of the area, but— and this is the other point— as trustee for the inhabitants of Great Britain generally.
The point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby is a sound one, that, if exceptional conditions are conceded in one area, we must take great care that nothing is done that will worsen the conditions of other areas. Those of us who represent areas which are not in themselves Special Areas, as I do in Glasgow or as hon.

Members do in the case of Liverpool, have often felt a certain jealousy when particular powers were given to Special Areas, and, therefore, the possibility of special advantages being given to one area to the detriment of other areas must be considered. In this case there will, in the first place, be the safeguard of the departmental examination; secondly, there will be the responsibility of the Minister; and, thirdly, there will be the responsibility of this House, which, as the Chairman of Ways and Means truly said, can, by virtue of the fact that the consent of the Minister is necessary, challenge any such action if other constituencies feel that they are being prejudiced by the concession of special advantages by the Minister in this respect. The limitation of the powers to the special conditions of Jarrow is also reinforced by the limitation in time, which is a very important factor. The operation of the Bill is bound up with the operation of the Special Areas Act, and a minimum of five years is laid down. The promoters of the Bill have modified the Preamble and have stressed the inter-relation of the powers here sought with the special economic difficulties from which Jarrow in particular suffers. I think one may say that the case for an experiment under these conditions and with these safeguards, both Parliamentary and in regard to time, has been made out.
I quite agree with the hon. Member for South Shields that we should as far as possible send a message of hope to the hard-pressed men and women of Jarrow, and I am sure that the House has examined the problem to-night, not with any desire to withhold any advantages, but with a desire if possible to see whether (a) the Bill would be a real advantage to the inhabitants of Jarrow itself, and (b) whether it would bring any disadvantages to other areas which are almost as hard-pressed as Jarrow itself. I think a case has been made out to show that these advantages can be safely conceded, and certainly we all wish the best of good fortune to Jarrow in the great fight that it is making against the evils which have come upon it in recent years. I hope very much that the House will concede these powers to-night, and I can give an undertaking, as Minister of Health, that I will carefully examine any proposals that may be brought before me under the Bill.
I hope it may be possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby may feel that the purpose they desired to serve by bringing these matters under review in the House to-night has in fact been served, and that they will not only not feel it necessary to press their Amendment to a Division, but will be able to see their way to withdraw it, so that the Third Reading of the Bill may go forth as the unanimous finding of the House.

Mr. Levy: My only desire was to serve the purpose of bringing these unusual powers before the House. I told the hon. Lady (Miss Wilkinson), who represents Jarrow so well, that I had no intention of taking the Amendment to a Division, and if it is the pleasure of the House, it certainly is my pleasure to withdraw the Amendment. I sincerely hope that the Bill will go forward with good will, and that, as time passes, Jarrow, instead of being a specially distressed area, will become a specially prosperous area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question:
That a sum, not exceeding £ 122,923, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Question again proposed.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: It is something more than a curious coincidence that the affairs of Jarrow should have been interpolated into this Debate, because I am afraid there are quite a number of Jarrows in the British Empire. It is remarkable that on the one day in the year that we have to discuss the affairs of the Crown Colonies we should have

to give up precious time to a matter which concerns home affairs. I agree that Jarrow is very important, but it is rather a pity that on this one day arrangements are not made for us to have a continuous Debate. We have had a remarkable Debate. , A Colonial administrator with such a record as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) has criticised this Blue Book and the Secretary of State's complacent attitude towards Colonial affairs. Many excellent speeches have been made on the other side of the Committee which have also denounced the Secretary of State's complacent attitude. I thought the Secretary of State's speech well worthy of this curious Blue Paper. It was complacent and it was flocculent. It reminded me in some ways of a maiden aunt trying to explain the facts of life to her more sophisticated nephews.
I do not share the Secretary of State's apparent delight in the Blue Paper. This year's issue— I think it is the third issue — has all the chattiness of a parish magazine. It is full of worthy sentiments and abounds in trivialities. Above all, it is devoid of any sense of proportion. The Secretary of State bemoans the fact that he has so little space, and then he proceeds to stud the space that he has with trivialities. Only 11 lines are allotted to the vital subject of merchant shipping in the Colonial Empire, and in a long speech to-day he never mentioned shipping. Everybody knows the importance of shipping to the British Empire. Greater space is given to the generosity of the British Council in aiding an English school in Cyprus, a contribution towards the purchase of land for the Bishop's School at Amman, and a gift of money to buy a playground and other amenities for St. Luke's School at Haifa. Items such as this should surely be on the Colonial Office Estimates. Surely it is very bad accounting for the British Council, an unofficial body, to obtain large sums of money from the Government and then to expend part of those subsidies on behalf of the Colonial Office.
To return to this uneven Blue Book, why should only 11 lines be given to shipping? Why should the report magnify the tips and grants of the British Council and minimise important matters like shipping? I have been reading a clear and


very detailed account of the affairs of the Colonial Empire in "An Economic Survey of the Colonial Empire," issued in 1938 by His Majesty's Stationery Office. Believe me, it is a much better book than the document I hold in my hand. This book contains 630 pages, and it tells a sad tale about Empire affairs, and particularly about shipping. I would advise every hon. Member to read this book. Here are a few facts about shipping which I have selected from the book. In 1936, the last year for which figures are available, the number of British sailing vessels that entered Mombasa was 12; the number of foreign sailing vessels amounted to no less than 210. Two hundred and twenty-two British steamers entered Mombasa, with a total tonnage of 896,394, as against 283 foreign steamers, with a total tonnage of 1,215,251. Take the last figures available showing the number of British vessels of over 75 tons which arrived at the various ports of the Straits Settlements. They numbered 4,155, and had a total tonnage of 9,500,000. The total number of foreign ships was 5,487, and they had a total tonnage of 13,305,000. I will not weary the Committee with further statistics. It is crystal clear that the merchant shipping situation in the British Empire could hardly be more deplorable. Surely the Secretary of State would have been much better occupied in giving more space to the grave state of Empire shipping rather than to the subsidised philanthropy of the British Council. There is something very wrong with the Secretary of State's sense of proportion.
On page 4 the Blue Book refers to Makerere College in Uganda; and it was referred to again in the Secretary of State's speech. In the Blue Book, on page 9, he announces the appointment of the late Master of Marlborough to be principal of that college. On page 31, a whole page is given over the college and to the appointment of the principal. On two other pages we have Makerere College again. Makerere is a most hopeful experiment, but why should it crowd out other important matters? The Secretary of State's grasp on trivialities is very firm. Consider his remarks about the Gold Coast. It is notorious that the situation has given a great deal of concern to people who are interested in that Colony. You would expect the Secretary of State to give a proper review of the affairs of

the Gold Coast. He gives very little space to its affairs. He imparts the following valuable information to us:
The new art course at Achimota College has had a very good beginning.
That is indeed an epoch-making matter. He goes on:
Satisfactory progress has been made with the building of the new Government technical school.
Then he says:
The people of Ashanti have given a silver bell to His Majesty's ship ' Ashanti 
I wish the people of the Gold Coast would hire a man with a bell to run after the Secretary of State and remind him of the plight of the Colony and of the necessity for him to develop a sense of proportion. The Secretary of State's report reminds me of the chatter of a self-conscious Lady Bountiful. He is a sort of adult "Alice in Wonderland" babbling about the globe. I wish the Secretary of State were present— [An HON. MEMBER: "The Minister of Health is here."] Yes, I prefer him to be here, because he has a more acute and convertible mind. But on page 4, the Secretary of State makes some contact with the realities of his office. He says:
In some parts of our Colonial Empire it may be said that, in spite of the peaceful conditions which have resulted from British rule, the populations still live under primitive conditions and suffer seriously from preventible disease.
He goes on to say:
Even such economic basis as exists for the improvement of conditions has been affected by the low prices of the principal Colonial commodities.
Very sensible words; but if these sentences mean anything they mean that these people are suffering from preventible diseases because of the lack of efficient economic and trading arrangements. He should long since have informed himself of the staggering fact that the following Colonies— I mention only a few as examples— have no trade representatives abroad and no overseas trade representatives in their territory. I am putting a strain on the credulity of the Committee when I say that that is the case in Somaliland, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Mauritius, Aden and Fiji. There are the British Solomon Islands. Someone may say, "Where are the British Solomon Islands? We have never heard of them."


They contain nearly 100,000 people. There are Gambia, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone. There are no trade representatives of Great Britain in these important Colonial territories, and they have no trade representatives abroad. There is Hong Kong, and although the Canadian and Siamese Governments have trade commissioners in this important Colony, we do not condescend to send trade representatives. I must make an exception in the case of the Seychelles. On page 296 of this report it is stated that the Clerk to the Governor acts as Colonial Imperial Trade Correspondent in that Colony. The Clerk to the Governor also has to act as Clerk to the Council, and in his spare time he has to look after Imperial trade in Seychelles. He certainly deserves praise, because he is very much underpaid. This overworked Poobah only receives £ 340 per year, and he has more to do than Sir Horace Wilson, and he is even more of an office boy.
Let me go on with the list. There are British Honduras, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Tonga, and the New Hebrides. There are no trade representatives of Great Britain in those territories and no trade representatives overseas. I now come to the most astonishing place of all— Nigeria. The population of Nigeria is nearly 20,000,000, which is nearly twice the population of Canada, three times the population of Australia and 15 times the population of New Zealand. The population of Nigeria is greater than the total population of all the Dominions put together. Here is what the compilers of the Colonial Office Survey say in their intelligent chapter on the economic life of the Colonial Empire:
Nigeria has no trade representative overseas, nor are there any overseas representatives in Nigeria.
There are nearly 20,000,000 people, and it is a territory with immense potentialities. We have no trade representative there, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will appoint no trade representative in London. Need the Secretary of State wonder why the per capita purchasing power of the population of the Colonial Empire is so pitifully low? How can it at the present time be expanded if those Colonies have no trade representatives abroad? Any sensible man knows that if one wants new

markets one has to create them. Ask our superior Ministers. I am not referring to the Minister of Health, because he is a learned man and is not used to indulging in platitudes and lectures to the members of the general public. But many of his superior colleagues, as you notice from reading the newspapers and listening to them in this House, are constantly lecturing or criticising British industrialists for their backward marketing methods. They say that these methods are antiquated and must be improved. But they as rulers of 60,000,000 people will not provide a marketing organisation of an adequate kind.
Is it any wonder that many of our overseas possessions are defaced by suppurating slums, dreadful poverty, and by disease, which could be prevented if economic conditions were improved? The Secretary of State may say that he is doing something to improve economic conditions. I have been looking through the report, and I observe, on page 47, that he says that during the year 1938 his much-vaunted Colonial Agricultural Advisory Council was in action. Splendid! It actually met five times during that year. That is a great contribution to the progress and prosperity of the Colonial Empire. The Secretary of State, in order to combat the serious position in the Colonies, set up a Colonial Marketing Board towards the end of 1937. It is doing a little mild educational and research work. I will read an extract from this report. It says:
A series of lantern slides and lectures descriptive of all Colonial products of interest to the grocery trade have been prepared.
I will read that again, if I may, as being the Secretary of State's supreme contribution to the development of the British Empire:
A series of lantern slides and lectures descriptive of all Colonial products of interest to the grocery trade have been prepared.
Lantern slides for grocers are a poor substitute for proper selling organisations.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: It is the Home and Colonial Stores.

Mr. Bracken: In listening to this Debate to-day I was very much struck by a remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham who said, and quite rightly, that, faced by the demand of dictators for sharing out the Colonies,


it is vital to us to face up to our responsibilities in the Colonial Empire. He declared in effect that it may be said to us "Why act as a dog in the manger? You are doing so little for the Colonies that you had better hand them over to nations who are willing to make a real effort to develop their economic resources." Can anyone really say that we are fulfilling that trust? See how well we have fulfilled it to-day. At no time to-day have there been more than 100 Members present in this House. A few hours every year are given over to the consideration of Colonial affairs, few attend our Debates and we forget all about the Colonial Empire for 12 months. In my judgment, we shall achieve nothing good until Parliament has some real opportunity of knowing what is happening in those far-flung Colonies of ours. The only information that we get about them is news of revolts due to bad labour conditions or other economic troubles.
It may be asked, how are we to keep in touch with those Colonies? Parliament should set up a committee on the lines of the Scottish Grand Committee, which will meet every week, or perhaps twice a week, if necessary, to give careful and consistent consideration to the affairs of our Colonial Empire. It may be objected that it will take up a good deal of the time of the Colonial Secretary, and I agree that it will. He will have even less time to pen pious platitudes or to emit the irrelevant generalisations about the Colonial Empire which came from him to-day. Such a committee would have the same bracing effect on him as Parliamentary Committees have on other Ministers. I am sure that the Secretary of State for the Dominions will agree with me that nothing can be more pleasurable than to meet a bracing committee once or twice a week. At the present moment the Colonial Secretary has enormous and unused powers, and he has no incitement to produce results, and there is no close or continuous supervision by this House.
I beg of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to remember that he is the administrator of a great Colonial Empire. He directs the affairs of a population far in excess of that of Great Britain— a population afflicted by the most dire distresses. Neither he nor his able officials have any practical experience of economic and trading affairs. He should send to every

Colony properly equipped economic and trading experts, and he should set up a forceful marketing organisation for the Colonies in the great centres of world trade. The best equipped men will be ready to serve or advise him. For they know, as we ought to know, that in a world ridden by race hatreds and insane trade restrictions, opportunties for extending trade in old markets are much clouded.
Before our eyes is the untilled field of the great British Colonial Empire. If we, by energetic and intelligent efforts, can steadily increase the standard of living of its inhabitants, we shall have fulfilled a most neglected part of our trust. If we create prosperity in our undeveloped Colonial Empire, we shall participate in that prosperity, and that is one of the reasons why I am so anxious that the House should identify itself regularly with the affairs of the Empire. By doing so we shall bring new hope to the 60,000,000 inhabitants of that Empire and to many of our own skilled but precariously employed workers. The opportunity is before us, and we must take it at once. The difficulties are great, but they are much less than those which faced our adventurous forefathers who had to tackle them with few advantages save their own strong willing hands. Surely we, endowed with the resources of science, with great accumulations of wealth and much wider resources of population, and with what would have seemed to our forefathers to be marvellous methods of transport and finance, should try to rescue our heritage from a creeping paralysis, caused by faithlessness, sloth, complacency and neglect.

8.55 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: After the worst and most troublous year that the Colonial Empire has known in my life time, we have the sort of speech to which we have listened to-day from the Colonial Secretary, and we have this precious Blue Book. It was said of somebody that his speech consisted of two parts— the truisms were trite, and what was not trite was not true. I must say that that is applicable to what we have been faced with to-day as a report of the working in very bad times of a very great Empire. This Blue Book is the compilation of the office cat. It has been put together by permanent officials as an insult to this House. I turn to a paragraph on page 87, which says:


Between the 15th February and the 15th April 1,229 illegal Jewish immigrants entered in three ships.
Why those dates? The whole paragraph, and it takes up one-third of the report on Palestine, is taken straight from an answer to a question which was put by me a month ago. They have simply gone through the Parliamentary papers, cut passages out, stuck them together, and embodied them in a report which has no sort of coherence. I agree with every criticism that has been made or the right hon. Gentleman's speech and the report in this most critical Debate. If there is one thing which is more vital to the Colonies at the present time than anything else, it is the land question, and in the whole of the report you find not one word about that. The land question is at the root of most of the economic difficulties throughout the Colonial Empire; and the question is dealt with differently and without any co-ordination or guidance in each one of our Colonies. Still, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that he has a goal towards which all the permanent officials are constantly directing their attention. There is no direction anywhere!
We were told in his speech that the administration of our Colonial Empire is a magnificent example of the way in which democracy can control affairs. That is the sort of sop that is thrown out to the House of Commons to accompany the defeat of the House of Commons on Palestine. The permanent officials, the bureaucracy, have for 19 years struggled against the House of Commons, and they have beaten us. So we have this delightful speech, written for the Secretary of State in order to soothe our injured feelings, to tell us that we are admirably conducting in this House the democratic control of the British Empire. Was there ever such humbug? On every question that has been taken up in this House recently we have been defeated by the permanent officials, and we have no possible means of bringing them to book. Again and again we have notifications that Parliament had better not meddle with what is the work of the experts. This Blue Book is the work of the experts.
The permanent officials are not primarily to blame. Twenty years ago the permanent officials of the Colonial Office and all over our Colonial Empire had

what I might call the liberal temperament. They looked at all these problems from the liberal point of view. I am not talking of the Liberal party point of view but the liberal vision. They were brought up in a good school. Latterly, we have seen this class of permanent official banished completely. I cannot point now to a single Governor in the British Empire who has what I would call the old-fashioned Colonial Office view. We have these people suppressing strikes, infected with the authoritarian gospel of Germany and Italy. It is a creeping disease which is affecting the ends of the Empire before it comes to overthrow us here.
The democratic control by this House of Colonial administration has never been lower, more feeble, more neglected and despised by officials than it is at the present time. We see the result of it all through the Colonies. We have the working classes, the natives, the gangsters, all making trouble, believing that the British Empire has come to an end, and that they have only to be enough of a nuisance to get their way with the present Government. British control to them has come to mean not control by the British democracy but the control of a narrow-minded bureaucracy who do not sympathise with democracy.
Take another question that is all important to the Colonial Empire at the present time and which is not mentioned in this Blue Book— security. How secure are the people in the Colonies that they are not to be handed back to Germany? The first thing we need in order to get commercial development is security, the knowledge that you are safe and that if you put your money into a country you will not have it confiscated by Hitler. All over Africa to-day there is this malaise going on. They do not know whether it would not be better to help kick the British out and so earn the support of the Germans. Such anxiety is felt not only in Palestine, in Kenya and Tanganyika, but in Nigeria and the Gold 0Cast as well. t1 is not merely a question of German appeasement. The Government have not made up their minds whether they are going to hand over Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to the Rhodesian Government, to clear out British control and to hand over to the white settlers. The people in Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland do not know where they


are. They do not know whether they are going to be handed over to a rule they hate, or whether they are to stay in the British Empire. There is not a word to-day from the Colonial Office to say whether the Government have made up their minds, or whether they are going to sacrifice the Colonial Empire to their precious doctrine of universal surrender.
There is another matter which everyone interested in Colonial politics has always before his mind, and that is the question of direct or indirect rule. I wonder what the goal, or the pole star as it has been called, of the Colonial Office is about direct or indirect rule in our Colonial Empire. I and all my friends on these benches wish for direct rule as a natural step towards responsible government. Indirect rule is the bolstering up of landlord and aristocrat domination in these countries. Their own chiefs have become landlords. Expropriation takes place as it took place long ago in this country. The chief is becoming the owner of the land, just as the land of the Highlands became the property of the clan chiefs. Whether we are aiming towards indirect or direct rule, who can tell from the speech we have heard or from the book that has been thrown at us as a guide to how the Colonial Empire is being developed?
There is not a word in this book and there has never been a word from the Front Bench to show that they have any conception of how France governs her colonies; there is not a word of comparison between French Colonial policy and English Colonial policy. We had better get out of our heads that we are the divine rulers of lower races. It is not enough to say that our hearts are in the right place and that the officials of the Colonial Office are all imbued with the divine mission of governing in the interests of the native. We might make a comparison and then we should not be so conceited. I do not know whether the Commission which went to the West Indies ever considered how it was that the French West Indies are prosperous and happy and the British West Indies are starving and in a state of riot. It would be beneath the notice of the Colonial Office to consider how foreign countries look after the natives. I do not ask the British Government to follow the colonial practice of the French or the

Belgians, but at least they might know what they are doing in order to be able to do a little better. There is one other thing which is absolutely left out of this valuable document.

Mr. Cove: Valuable?

Colonel Wedgwood: I put "valuable" in inverted commas. You will not find one word in this compilation on an important question which has cropped up in this Debate and which comes up on every Debate on Colonial affairs, and that is absolute justice and uniformity of treatment between different races in the different Colonies. Since the Colonial Office changed its character and became authoritarian we have had all sorts of new legislation devised to deal with particular colours and particular evils. It began in Kenya by dividing the sheep from the goats, those who could buy land and those who could not. It went to Palestine, those who may buy land and those who may not. Then it went to every one of the Colonies where a new constitution was being considered, the sheep were placed on the right hand of justice and the goats on the left hand of expediency. The great British principle of uniformity of treatment and equal justice for all men is being discarded by the bureaucracy, and if this House dares to say anything on the subject it is told by its schoolmasters that it is meddling with something which democracy had better leave alone. The year that has gone by has been the most damaging year to our prestige, to our traditions; riots and disorder have been more frequent than any year I have known in my political history, so far as the Colonial Empire is concerned. And we are faced with this pious Sunday afternoon sermon and this compilation as an explanation why our Colonial Empire has been so shockingly governed.

9.9 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I want to emphasise the suggestion that has been made that some form of Parliamentary Committee composed of members of all parties and of members of the other House should investigate from time to time the problems which confront us in our Colonial Empire. I am certain that many questions which are asked in this House would not be asked, and that many speeches which are made by hon. Members who do not know the country about which


they are speaking would not be made, if it was possible from time to time to have meetings with the Colonial Secretary, his officials and the representatives of the Colonies who come home from time to time from our oversea settlements. I am certain that the hon. Member for Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) would not have made the speech he did if he had had an interview with the Governor of Cyprus who has just lately come home. I think that the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) should be considered, and that it may be possible to have some form of committee. It would be helpful to the Colonial Secretary, to the Colonial Office and to the Colonial Empire. After all we are all members as it were of a great company and we want to help the company, and I am sure that we could give it much more help by private discussions than we can by party talk across the Floor of the House.
I want to say a few words on the question of development, and particularly to stress the reference which was made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) as to the time it takes to get anything done. The hon. Member put his finger on the spot. We are really dealing, especially in Africa, with people who are at a stage of civilisation which corresponds roughly to the time when the Phoenicians visited Britain somewhere about 2,000 years ago, and yet hon. Members are rather inclined to say that we must hurry on, we must educate them quickly, and treat them as though they were living in Wales, or Yorkshire, or Somersetshire. At the same time there is no excuse for our not continuing the development of these countries in every way possible. We have a trust to discharge, and it is a very difficult trust, made even more difficult by the economic reasons which have been already referred to. How are we going to persuade an African native to grow more crops in order to get a certain price if when the time arrives world prices have fallen. How can the African native in his little world understand what is going on in the great world outside, and yet the question of prices is at the bottom of all the trouble. I had a letter to-day which said:
Sugar production is the life blood of the people of Mauritius. Reduce the price of sugar

and curtail its export and the whole community will feel it.
The same applies all round. We cannot control world prices, and it is necessary to continue development. If we do that and grow more crops for export, then it is absolutely essential that we should have proper marketing arrangements. I was rather sorry to find in the annual report only a short reference to the Colonial Empire Marketing Board. I quite understand that the report on this has not yet been published, although I see no reason why it should not have been published, for after all, six months of this year have passed. The report makes no real reference to what is being done and in connection with marketing, I want to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), that it is most important to find markets not only in this country but abroad. I have recently had evidence which shows that very little is being done to find markets abroad for our Empire products. If we ask the people in the Colonies to grow crops, we ought to find markets for them. But however well we organise, we have to be careful, for there is always a possibility of weakness in the administrative machinery. The advancement of these countries depends not on officialdom, but on the individual official in the Colonies, with patience, humour, an interest in his work, and an affection for the untutored people in his care. In reading the report, I wondered whether sufficient latitude is allowed to those who are ruling in the Colonies overseas. I was horrified to see in page 6 the following paragraph:
The increased work of the Colonial Office is reflected in the number of communications which are being received and sent. They amounted to 389,000 in 1938, or 30 per cent more than in 1934.
I have travelled a good deal in the Empire, and one of the chief criticisms I have heard is that the people on the spot are not allowed to take sufficient decisions and that everything has to be referred to London. If that be the case, obviously it hampers the local officials and really nullifies the power which they should have. I see that on page 7 of the report the Colonial Secretary states:
I inherited from my predecessors the tradition of trusting the men on the spot.
I call upon my right hon. Friend to implement that statement, and to do so as much as possible in future. I was glad


to see in the report of the Bledisloe Commission that, in speaking about a possible amalgamation of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, they also lay particular stress on more responsibility being given to Provincial Commissioners. I should like to make a few suggestions about the administrative machine. I am certain that the Colonial Office ought to be sectionalised. I was glad that the Bledisloe Commission said exactly the same thing. They stated in their report:
It is suggested as a matter for consideration whether the strength of the establishments now employed in Africa, and the importance of the issues of policy which now present themselves, do not afford strong reasons for constituting a separate branch of the Colonial Service, confined to employment in Africa.
I would apply that statement to the Mediterranean, the East, and the West Indies. As regards the Colonial Office itself, I cannot help feeling that it is like a wheel that is getting larger and larger, having more spokes all directed to the hub, which is the Colonial Secretary. I am not sure that there is not too much work for the present organisation and the present Colonial Secretary, or any Colonial Secretary. How is it possible for the Colonial Secretary, who during the last year has had all the troubles in the West Indies and Palestine, to give day-to-day decisions on all points which arise? I rather feel that the corridors of the Colonial Office are paved with decisions deferred and with compromises. What we want in ruling our Colonies is decision and firm action. Last year, I suggested the possibility of a Royal Commission to look into the whole organisation of the Colonies. I suggest now, as a preliminary, that the three gentlemen whom the Colonial Secretary mentioned might sit round a table and give the Colonial Secretary some very practical advice. I am referring to Lord Hailey the chairman or a member of the Bledisloe Commission, and the chairman or a member of the West Indies Committee. I should like to hear what those gentlemen would be able to say to the Colonial Secretary in camera. I submit that the present machine requires to be looked into, and I hope that something of that sort will be done. This evening there have been all sorts of criticisms but I think that possibly some sort of reorganisation, or at any rate examination, of the machinery, coupled with the idea of

a standing inter-Parliamentary committee, might be valuable to the Colonial Office, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider these suggestions.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I have read the report, which seems to give the Colonial Secretary a good deal of satisfaction, and I want to speak not so much about what it contains as what it does not contain. It seems to me to present a general, but meagre, picture of what has happened in many Colonies during the past year. The report is supposed to review the changes and developments in the Colonies during the period from April of last year to March of this year. With regard to that part of the Colonial Empire where there are 2,500,000 of the 3,000,000 subjects who are referred to in the report as having been troublesome during the last 12 months, Jamaica is dismissed with half a page and the West Indies with about five pages. That is the worst aspect of the review contained in the report. It gives a sort of general picture of certain general aspects common to all the Colonies, but there has been no appreciation of the need for telling us what has been done particularly in connection with those Colonies where the disturbances have taken place. In view of the fact that during the 12 months in question, in Jamaica alone there were no less than 46 people killed in the troubles, 429 injured, and more than 1,000 arrested and imprisoned, one would have thought that more than half a page in the report would have been devoted to those very striking events. I cannot help feeling that there has been an attempt to gloss over that state of things. The report reminds us of the seriousness of those developments and gives some indication of definite steps which are being taken to meet the causes out of which those events took place.
I want to ask the Committee to switch over to the West Indies, and I want to confine my remarks exclusively to that part of the Colonial Empire, for one reason, because the West Indies are in the unique position that they are populated by a British population which in some cases has been under British rule and British tuition for 300 years, and in others 200 and 250 years, and though they are still very far from being in the position of self-governing Colonies, they are Europeanised, and, compared with other Colonial populations, large sections of


them have a high degree of culture. What are the three outstanding problems which face the Imperial Parliament with regard to the situation in the West Indian Islands? They are common everywhere, but they are outstanding there. The first is the condition of labour, the second is the economic development of the islands, and the means whereby a higher standard of living may be built up by economic development, and the third the desirability of meeting a very insistent demand, which cannot be choked down, for some extension of self-government and the full equality of the Jamaican people with British subjects in this country. Unfortunately, in the report nothing is said about what the Government have in view, and I want to ask the Secretary of State not to slide away from the question. What is the thought-out policy of the Government with regard to establishing a stable basis for labour conditions so as to avoid the discontent and disturbances which have taken place in the last two or three years?
The report refers to the fact that labour advisers have been appointed and are operating in certain of the Colonies. That is all right so far as it goes, but, as one who has been there in the last four or five months and has made very careful inquiry, I am convinced that the mere appointment of a labour adviser is not going to meet the needs of the situation. It is only another small step and, if it is not followed up with an adequate scheme of Labour Departments for islands like Jamaica and Trinidad, it will not achieve any substantial improvement at all. That is the common opinion in all Labour circles in the West Indies. It is not a case of blacks, as in Nigeria or Tanganyika. Thirty or 40 per cent. of the population of Jamaica is highly educated and has a culture equal or superior to that of similar people in this country. Are the Government visualising the establishment of a full Labour Department, linked up with health and unemployment insurance and old age pensions? I should like some indication of what is in the mind of the Government. Unless there is going to be a clearly thought out long-term policy, the Government are not on the right road to meeting these problems.
In regard to my second point, measures designed to raise the standard of life and improve amenities, the

Minister has said, in answering a question of mine, that he does not see his way to establish old age pensions because of lack of means. The way out of that difficulty is twofold. In the first place, the Imperial Parliament has to face the question whether it is content to take the view that at no time are our West Indian subjects to be entitled to a social standard equivalent to that in this country. Do they take the view that the working classes of Jamaica or Trinidad are not to have the protection of social legislation and the advantage of better social services on a more or less equal scale with their fellow subjects here? That is a question to which the Minister might give his attention.
If he says the means are not there, I would remind him that loans could be advanced. Beyond that, there is the question of the Government's intentions with regard to the economic improvement of the West Indian colonies so as to give the mass of the people there a better standard of living than they enjoy to-day. Anyone who has viewed the West Indian scene at close quarters cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that the future prosperity of these West Indian Colonies, with the exception perhaps of Trinidad, and, it may be, of British Guiana, lies in a persistent and enlightened development of their natural agricultural resources. There are no industrial undertakings which can be developed to a large size, and the economy of the Colonies is, for the most part, based upon their natural resources and upon agriculture. So, I urge on the Secretary of State that there should be no further delay. The Government must realise, after the disturbances of 1937 and of last May and June, which occurred not only in Jamaica and British Guiana, but swept through the whole of the West Indian islands, that they must settle down to a definite, consistent and large policy of land settlement and development.

Sir Walter Smiles: Would the hon. Member agree that the standard of agriculture in Jamaica is among the worst in the world?

Mr. Riley: I would not pose as an agricultural expert, and I would not say that it is the worst in the world. There are neglected lands it is true, but it would be pertinent to retort to the hon. Gentleman, by asking who is responsible for


that neglect? Is the responsibility on the large planters who, for generations, have used the land in Jamaica for their own benefit and denied the mass of Jamaicans the right to independent plots of land on which to live? All I am urging is that it is our responsibility as an Imperial Parliament to see that the standard of living of the people in these islands is raised. We have to devise means to that end. It is for the Colonial Office to bend its energies to that task and to use all its powers to carry through widespread schemes for the extension of land settlement, the encouragement of education and the development of those products for which the West Indian Colonies are particularly well adapted. That is the outstanding need with which every visitor to the West Indies is impressed. The Secretary of State said that since last June, some 3,000 families had been settled on lands in Jamaica alone. A previous speaker referred to delays and to the slow rate at which reform proceeded in the Colonies. I have been asking the Secretary of State for several weeks past what has happened in Jamaica since June 1938 with regard to unemployment. In March of this year there were 15,000 registered unemployed in Kingston alone. One can get information about these matters only with the greatest difficulty and although the right hon. Gentleman said to-day that he had figures indicating that 3,000 families had been settled, and I think 12,000 acres of land acquired—

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, 3,000 persons, or 600 families.

Mr. Riley: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the first week of March this year I was in Kingston? I spent a morning at the Land Commissioner's office inquiring about what was being done. There were maps hanging on the wall showing the areas of land to be acquired, but when I asked how much had already been acquired, the reply was, "None." I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the disturbances took place in June. I suggest that there must be greater speed in these matters if anything substantial is to be achieved. It is not only a question of improving labour conditions and dealing with the land problem. Those questions are fundamental in the task of raising the standard of life of people who are accustomed to agriculture, but who have been excluded from the land in years past, many

of them being compelled to go over to Central America and get work there. But there is also the important question of what is to be done to meet the rising demand for the extension of self-government and of the franchise. These people, remember, have been under our control for nearly 300 years. We have to consider the claim of our Jamaican fellow-subjects, whatever their colour, to an equal opportunity of rising to the highest position in their native country.
Such a right does not exist to-day, and I wish to give one or two examples of what seems to me to be a growing scandal. Jamaica has a population of 1,150,000, and its people have had generations of association with our own country. Such are the facts to-day that out of a population of 1,152,000 there are only 62,000 electors on the Parliamentary register; only 5 per cent. of that population have the right to vote, to have a voice in the councils of the island. The proportion of electors to population in British Guiana is, I think, 2.8 per cent., and in British Honduras 3.52 per cent. In our own country the proportion of electors to the population is about 56 per cent. The reason is the qualifications required. In this country there is no sort of qualification whatever, but in Jamaica there has to be a property qualification for anyone to vote. I think it is £ 2 in direct taxes for a woman to have the right to vote. But the difficulty of admission to representative government is far worse than that. In Jamaica you have to have, in order to be a member of the Legislative Council, a minimum income of £ 150 a year. That does not sound much here, but it debars practically the whole population of Jamaica from sitting in the Legislative Council.
It is these anomalies to which I want the Minister to pay some serious attention. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred earlier to the difference between the treatment of native subjects in French Colonies and in British Colonies. How extraordinary it is. Nothing could be more striking than the position in the West Indies, and the West Indians are perfectly well aware of it. For instance, lying betwen the Leeward and the Windward Islands are the two important French islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe. Whereas there is not


one of our West Indian Colonies where these subjects of ours, who have been for generations members of the British Commonwealth, have full self-government, and 5 per cent. only of them can qualify for voting, in the two French islands that lie between the Windward and Leeward Islands they have manhood suffrage, no qualifications whatever, full self-government, with a black man as the Governor of Martinique and two black deputies sent from Martinique to the French Chamber to represent the colonists there.

Mr. Remer: Is it not a fact that in Jamaica the whole of the Legislative Council, with the exception of one member, are native people?

Mr. Riley: I think the hon. Member will find that the number of elected representatives in Jamaica is 14, and if my memory is correct, they are not all coloured people, but over and above the 14 elected members there are 15 who are appointed by the Government and can, therefore, outvote the others. Finally, may I put this to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is an issue which is coming to the front? For the first time in Colonial history, in the West Indies this year a great new Jamaican political party has come into being— it was formed, as a matter of fact, last September— called the People's National Party. It is the first time this has happened in Jamaican history, and this party will fight elections in the future, and it will demand equality as between black and white, without distinction.
One may say without any kind of sinister meaning that while there are these differences between the privileges of white and coloured people, there is a great assimilation between them in many ways. There is no race problem there worth mentioning. Black and white children go to the same schools, white and coloured teachers teach in the same schools, in the hospitals there are white people and black people, and in social life black and white people mix together, but for some reason our Colonial Office has a fetish that it must prevent the coloured people, however able they are, from rising to the highest positions in the State. That rankles in the minds of the Jamaican people. There are Jamaicans of great education and culture who are capable of governing, and why should they not have the right to govern the land in which they were born and in which their ancestors also were born? I submit that these are the things,

not the things glossed over in the report that has been presented to us, that want tackling in our Colonial territories, and that by tackling them the right hon. Gentleman will make a real contribution to better conditions in our Colonial Empire.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I believe it was one of the favourite maxims of the great Disraeli that you catch more flies with a teaspoonful of honey than with a gallon of gall. I shall therefore preface the very brief remarks which I propose to make this evening by complimenting the Secretary of State on his speech this afternoon. It is said that Demosthenes achieved the perfection of his oratorical art by running uphill before breakfast every morning with some pebbles in his mouth. With this idea in his mind I suppose my right hon. Friend has chosen Hampstead Hill for his residence, and no doubt practises this somewhat unusual but nevertheless efficacious method for improving his oratory. Having complimented him, in I hope suitable terms, may I string one small, and I trust not too wounding an arrow to my bow. He referred, in the course of his remarks, to Africa as a Continent which, if a wrong decision were taken now, might become a Continent of unhappiness in the future. I want for three or four minutes to refer to the situation on the Gold Coast.
In September, 1938, the Cocoa Commission submitted its report. It is now June, 1939, and as far as I know His Majesty's Government are still awaiting the comments of the Advisory Committee set up by the Gold Coast Government to examine their propositions. I know that there must be a very understandable tendency to put off matters as long as possible. As far as I know the situation is not critical. There have been no inflammatory speeches and no riots on a large scale, but I believe there is discontent still under the surface and much shaking of heads in the native villages. I admit that my right hon. Friend inherited a veritable Pandora box of troubles from his predecessor. The Colonial Office, in the autumn of 1937, implied that they supported the buying pool agreement which various firms proposed to bring into effect at that date. Whether rightly or wrongly, those agreements produced the most violent reaction on the Gold Coast. I do not want to weary the Committee, but I have one or two quotations from a statement to the


Commission by Sir Afori Atta, a chief distinguished by his intelligence and knowledge of Gold Coast conditions. He said:
We believe that the objects in the formation of the pool are to control the price of our stocks and to eliminate the little broker, so that European capitalists may have free and unrestricted access to the real exploitation of the cocoa fields.
I do not know whether these comments are justified or are not justified, but we have to take into account that this fear of exploitation is a real psychological factor on the Gold Coast. I believe it is quite useless to wait for public opinion on the Gold Coast to form itself. After all, the Ashanti farmer, in his reed and mud hut, does not realise that it is the demand from the United States and from Great Britain that really makes his prosperity or his poverty. I believe, therefore, it is up to the Government to take a lead.
If the Government have no alternative plan of their own, might they not actively consider the plan put forward by the Commission? I believe this plan, whose aim is to group the native producers in an association presided over by a statutory board, would remove from them this fear of exploitation by the big European firms. Obviously before any plan like this comes into effect there must be a certain amount of preparation. I believe the first step in this preparation should be a survey of the cocoa resources. So far as I know there is no accurate estimate on the Gold Coast at the present moment of the area under cocoa cultivation, of the dates of the planting of the trees, of areas coming into bearing, or even of the decrease in production. I believe it is a fact that, should the Government wish at any moment to enter into an international plan for the restriction of cocoa, they would not know the assets in the possession of the Gold Coast. Now about six years ago the rubber producers of the world decided upon a restriction plan. The Malay States knew exactly the acreage under rubber, the Dutch interests did not know their exact acreage, and therefore the Malay interests got much the best of the bargain.
Secondly, it seems to me that we should start a campaign for agricultural education on the Gold Coast. With a primitive people the appeal must always be to the eye. Would it not be possible to pro-

duce text-books with pictures and a minimum of script telling the natives how to develop their cocoa plantations to the best advantage? Likewise, they are entirely ignorant of the factors which govern the marketing of cocoa. Would it not be possible to have a travelling cinema van to visit native centres and show them how the cocoa is marketed, how it is carried down to the coast, how it is taken on lighters through the surf to the waiting ships, how it is disposed of by the brokers in London, and, finally, how it is consumed in the homes of the housewives of Kansas or Birmingham, and how the demand for cocoa makes for the prosperity or poverty of the Gold Coast? I think the native believes that the price he receives across the counter for his cocoa bean is arbitrarily decided by the broker. He does not realise that it is decided by the world markets.
Finally, could not the question of debt be tackled? In Eastern countries debt hangs round the shoulders of the agriculturist like the old man of the sea in the story of Sinbad the Sailor. I believe that on the Gold Coast the producer thinks nothing of paying 50 per cent. on borrowed money. It seems to me that the only way to overcome this difficulty is to encourage thrift and saving among the cocoa producers. I believe that the overseas branch of Barclays Bank has been very successful on those lines in Palestine. They started with a fund of £ 100,000, which was used to lend to Arab farmers. That capital has rapidly increased and is serving a most useful purpose.
I must sit down, because my time has run its span. I would only say in conclusion that I believe that what the Secretary of State said was true, and that Africa will present us with the great problem of the future. It may be that within the next century the movement for self-government which has run through Asia in this century will travel to Africa, and it may be that in the year 2,000 the drums of Africa will be spelling out a new message, the message of self-government for the black people. If that day comes I believe we shall look forward to the future with greater confidence, and to the past with a clearer conscience, if we feel quite certain that we have in our policy been the trustees of the true interests of the black people.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to raise one or two points which have not been specifically touched upon yet in the Debate. First I should like to record my regret that one of the greatest and most expensive pests in Africa has not received in the report the attention which I must claim for it. Only small mention is made of the tsetse fly. It is true that certain steps are recorded as having been taken to deal with the diseases affecting human beings spread by that fly, yet hardly sufficient attention has been paid to the other aspect of the evil work of that fly. My right hon. Friend mentioned the tragedy of populations which have been driven from certain districts in Africa by the presence of that fly. The very fact that he mentioned its evil activities urges me to ask him whether something more cannot be done to clear, particularly Northern Rhodesia, or at least to stop the spread of the fly. It is not so much the effect of disease on human beings as the impossibility of the tribesmen keeping beasts on the land or of the European farmer opening up land for grazing and other forms of farming; the serious difficulty is that the whole system for improving the social structure and services of the native people is upset by the absolute impossibility of encouraging them, so long as the fly exists in their areas, to develop their form of agriculture on more modern and more scientific lines.
The shifting form of agricultural cultivation must continue until we can cause the native to believe that we have for him a practical alternative, and I do not believe that anyone can find a practical alternative unless we can clear those areas from fly. The danger of the spread of the fly is an ever-growing one with the increasing use of the motor car and the lorry for transport in that part of Africa. In the last few months a new road has been opened, going down to Mongu through a very bad fly belt, and the indications are that unless extreme precautions are taken the fly will spread along that new road. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider whether more money and greater effort— and it needs both to a very large degree— could not wisely be expended on tsetse fly control.
Let me turn to an even more important issue, and that is the question of the stabilisation of native labour, where big industrial units exist. Again I speak of

Northern Rhodesia and the copper belt in particular. Nothing is more striking than the contrast between the terms of employment in Northern Rhodesia and in the Belgian Congo. In the Belgian Congo, where longer-term contracts are in operation, every possible encouragement is given to settling the native with his wife within the mine compound, where the native village is reproduced on an improved basis, and where a certain amount of privacy and family life is allowed. That is a very direct contrast with the somewhat barrack-like, though good, conditions in our own compounds. As regards the economic industrial effect of long-term contracts the advantages are all in favour of the Belgian system.
But there are far greater problems than that. I believe that it has been the policy of the Government in the past rather to disapprove of having a man employed in the mine longer than is necessary because of the fear of large scale detribalisation. I wonder whether we are not rather exaggerating the dangers of this so-called detribalisation. As far as I could see as the result of a short visit to an industrial centre in the Belgian Congo which I was enabled to pay last year thanks to the courtesy of the Belgian Government, there is very little danger of real detribalisation as the result of long periods of industrial or urban employment. I admit that this is primarily a problem for the industrialist to solve, but certainly it seems to me to be one where the Government can give encouragement to the industrialist to change his policy if, in the opinion of the Government, it would be wise so to do. Is that not one of the points of long-term policy which is worthy of the closest possible consideration on the part of my right hon. Friend and his Department? It is almost impossible to conceive of the present system being allowed to continue and develop without control, involving as it does the free offering of labour at the mine, a most wasteful process, involving long journeys by the natives from many different parts of the territory and indeed from other territories, and on arrival possibly finding no work available. The natives is then so to speak "farmed out" in the mining compound and given a subsistence ration on the chance that he may be able to pick up a job later on. Nothing could be more unhealthy for the native or for the situation in the compound itself.
But all these are minor matters compared with the fundamental question of non-stabilisation or stabilisation of labour. On that issue everybody knows that the impact of this tremendous industrial development in Northern Rhodesia came very suddenly. It is no secret that the local government of the territory was not prepared for it, and the problems raised by this type of industrialisation are new to us in our colonial experience. Is it not time that there was set up among the local administrative officers a special group charged with the special attention to such problems as do arise in those places? The provincial commissioners and the district commissioners whose duty it is to care for the natives in the copper belts draw the same pay as those in other parts of the territory. In that area the European miner who is up to his job can earn more in a year than the total pay of a provincial commissioner and almost double if not three times the pay of a district commissioner. That position is most unhealthy and officials who are detailed for the very special duties in the copper belt area should have special pay. Nothing is more important than that the local representatives of the Government should be able to maintain friendly contact with those in the industry in the locality. May I also refer to the suggestions which have been made during the Debate for some form of committee or standing committee to deal with problems of colonial administration. I am not one of those who would support a suggestion for a standing committee of Parliament to consider these problems if such a committee stood alone. I believe that we can find some valuable suggestions in assistance of that proposal in the methods adopted by the Belgian Parliament as regards part of the administration of the Belgian Congo in connection with which the Colonial Council in Belgium has great power. In that case the Minister responsible has to explain to the Belgian Parliament why he differs, should he do so, from the Colonial Council in any decisions at which he may arrive. That system is well worth our examination. I would agree with hon. and right hon. Members who have stressed the necessity of this House taking its responsibilities in respect of colonial administration more seriously, and I urge upon my right hon. Friend the necessity for urgent examination of

all means by which our responsibilities in this connection may be best carried out, for he may feel assured that there are many hon. Members in all quarters of the House who are ready to devote considerable time to assisting him in the study of the problem as to how we can make a success of colonial administration.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think every hon. Member will agree that we have had a most interesting and valuable Debate, ranging over almost every Continent and almost every department of human nature. I want to confine myself to some of the main ideas which have emerged from the Debate, to main ideas on which I believe there has been very wide agreement in many quarters of the House, and on which I hope the Secretary of State may feel able in the early future to take action and thereby to make this Debate memorable in the history of Colonial administration. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that our vast Colonial Empire is at the present time at a very interesting and important stage in its development. Lord Hailey in his African survey said:
The present is possibly the most formative and therefore the most critical period of African history.
He stated that the whole future of our Colonial Empire was being settled at the present time. If we take the wrong line we shall make for ourselves a continent of unhappiness and trouble, not only in Africa but elsewhere, for everywhere, as in Africa, industrialisation and education are changing the lives of the people at an unprecedented rate. Lord Bryce once said of the negroes in the United States of America that after emancipation they had made as great progress in 50 years as the peoples of Europe had made in 300 years.
That is going on in the primitive countries to-day, and we must expect that in the next 30 years, within the lifetime of the Secretary of State, the picture will be very different indeed from what it is now. How will it be different? What shall we have done? Shall we or shall we not have built up the great company of free and happy and progressive people we all want to see? We shall not have done it if we remain as complacent and optimistic as the Secretary of State was to-day.
We all agree with the right hon. Gentleman that much admirable work has been done and that he has taken some valuable


steps forward in recent months. We all agree that many good men are giving their lives to the service of the native peoples throughout the Empire and that there is much of which we can be proud. But we must not forget that there are many black spots. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) in thinking that while something has been done it is utterly insignificant in comparison with what remains to be done. The story of the six houses in St. Helena has a great significance. The Secretary of State is too easily satisfied with minor steps which leave the main problems untouched. We need a reorganisation of our Colonial administration and a re-orientation of our Colonial policy. We need to make the same great Government effort and put forth the same Government drive and the same expenditure of capital and brains which the Dutch made a generation ago in their East Indies, and if we do we shall get the same results.
The first step to that end has been stressed by various hon. Members during the Debate to-day, and it is that we must have what we have not now, a conscious purpose and objective in the Colonial policy which we pursue. In the study of administration in Nigeria which I believe is used as a text book for the guidance of officials there, Miss Margery Perham says that one of the special merits of the Nigerian system has been the definition of policy and a statement of the principles to be pursued. She said that those definitions had brought significance into the dull routine of administrative officers and unified the purpose for which they were all working together there. Lord Hailey said in this survey, that, taking the Empire as a whole, we had a central direction and major lines of policy, and that such central direction was especially valuable in the present formative stage. I agree with the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) that we need to look much wider than our individual Colonies as separate units. In almost every chapter of the Hailey survey those who wrote it insisted that Africa must be treated as a whole because its problems were continental and transcended the artificial boundaries and frontiers which Europeans had made. That is true very largely of the Empire as a whole.
May I try to emphasise to the Secretary of State some of the principles which have been expressed in the Committee this afternoon and which we hope will guide

him when he is laying down principles by which the objective and purpose of our policy must be formed? First among them, without doubt, I put equality of rights and equality before the law of all the subjects of the King. There shall be no colour bar, whether it be social, economic or political in any realm of the Colonial Empire; and the conscious purpose of our policy in those areas shall be the self-government of those peoples, long before the year 2000 of which the hon. Member spoke. Above all, we must at this stage make them feel that they can rely upon British justice in every way. I am afraid that they cannot do that in some parts of the Empire at the present time. There are some parts where the development of trade unionism is of the utmost importance, in the interests of the community as a whole, and not only of its working part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) spoke this afternoon of prosecutions and convictions of men in Barbados and elsewhere for trade union activity. He spoke of the case of Grant. I recall also the case of Uriah Butter who was imprisoned for trade union activity and was subsequently released, after he had succeeded in appealing to the Privy Council. There was Wallace-Johnson of the Gold Coast, who was convicted and imprisoned, and who was given leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but who cannot raise the £ 60 required to print the records of the earlier trial because the Colonial governor of the Gold Coast will not pay that money. That is, in fact, a denial of justice to Wallace-Johnson, and the frustration of an order made by the highest court which the King maintains.

Mr. M. MacDonald: I think I owe it to the House to say that I understand arrangements have been made which will enable the proceedings to be printed, and will, therefore, enable the appeal to proceed.

Sir Stafford Cripps: May I point out that those arrangements have not been made by the Colonial Office? Fortunately the Privy Council, in this particular case, dispensed with the necessity for printing, and allowed the documents to be typed; but the typing has still to be paid for, and the money has still to be found.

Mr. MacDonald: I do not want to take away the hon. Member's time, but the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I


was interested in certain moves in regard to getting leave to have the documents in typescript instead of in print.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope that, even if a temporary and ad hoc arrangement has been made in this case, the Secretary of State will go further and make some permanent arrangement by which all such cases can be heard by the Privy Council. I only raise this case as an illustration, but it is an important matter which involves the fundamental principle of equality of rights for all those who live within the Colonial Empire.
I come now to the second principle in the definition of our Colonial purpose. It is that the interests of the natives shall be supreme. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) would have been able to speak about the very slow progress of the union of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I only mention it in passing, but it seems to me to involve in a peculiarly important degree the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the native, and I hope that, before the Secretary of State agrees upon anything with Mr. Huggins, he will ensure that the House shall have an opportunity of debating the Bledisloe Report and the question of amalgamation. In this matter of the supremacy of the interests of the natives, I think that the question of economic exploitation is of supreme importance. The Secretary of State said that, if there had been exploitation in the past, he hoped that to-day it was over. Of course, we all agree that the doctrines of economic Imperialism are utterly discredited. No one now believes that a nation can grow rich at the expense of its subject peoples in Colonies and abroad. But, unfortunately, individuals can, and do.
My hon. Friend quoted the wages in Tanganyika— a mandated territory— of from 5s. to 10s. per month of 30 days. That is not an isolated exception; I have here an extract from a report made by a committee of 30 eminent persons for the Aborigines Protection Society, in which it is stated that, in the four great African Colonies, wage rates of from 5s. to 15s. a month are the regular rule for the vast majority of people, and that most families in those countries have cash incomes of probably less than £ 3, and certainly less than £ 5, per year. They say that such wages are morally indefensible, and that

is true; but they are much worse— they are very wasteful. The report goes on to say that wages of that kind cannot possibly form a basis for any sound industrial economy. The Secretary of State, on page 16 of his survey, told us the story, to which reference has been made, of the experiment in feeding labourers properly at Kampala Railway Station, and his report says that the results showed that the extra output paid for the extra diet several times over. Could there be a more striking example of the utter waste of the present system? The 30 eminent persons of whom I have spoken say that the low wages which have so attracted European development in Africa are often a cloak for inefficiency in the labourers and a premium on inefficiency on the part of employers. That is fundamentally true.
It is true of emigration in Africa. I wish I had time to quote the report of those Colonial officials on the terrible results of emigration in the territory of Nyasaland, in which they say that unless the emigration of labour recruited abroad is stopped, the social life of the country-will be destroyed, every kind of moral enormity will result, and a great part of the land will go derelict. The Secretary of State should regard it as, perhaps, the first of all his duties to try to tackle these conditions: to improve these labour conditions and these wages. I hope he will push further the work of his new Labour Departments and see that the right men are put into them, and I hope he will support the work of the International Labour Office, begun 10 or 12 years ago by Dr. Nansen. In that field there is much that he can do which will bear fruit. But, fundamentally, he will not be able to improve these conditions or deal with the real problem unless he is prepared to sink more capital in the Colonial Empire, for the training and education of the natives to live a better life. Nothing truer was ever said in this House than was said by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) today: that you must put something into these territories if you want to get out of them what you ought to have. The work of the Jews in Palestine should be our model. But the Secretary of State is trying to do the opposite thing— what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley called "running the Empire on the cheap."
The Secretary of State spoke of the Hailey Survey. We are very grateful for


it; but it should have been done years ago by the Government themselves. It is a scandal that we should have to depend on money from an American foundation for this work in our Colonial Empire. Social research and education should not be limited— as the Secretary of State considers it should— by what each individual colony can afford, with perhaps a little help, mostly by way of loan, from the Colonial Development Fund. That is a fundamental error, which is utterly wasteful. It will keep the native people at their present low standard of living, and leave us with a vast Imperial estate which is undeveloped, to the great loss of the inhabitants and of the world, for which we are trustees. I would like to take the illustration of health. I remember years ago when I was an undergraduate in America being told of of the devastations of hookworm in the Southern States. A doctor told me of the work he had done to cure and prevent it. In Africa, over 90 per cent. of the population are infected by some kind of worm disease. Frequently, as many as six kinds have been found in the same individual. These diseases can be cured. It is only a question of money and of knowledge.
When the Secretary of State says we are spending £ 100,000 a year on research and agricultural education, I am bound to say that it leaves me very cold. For 50,000,000 people and millions of square miles of territory, £ 100,000 a year, and that mostly by way of loan, is utterly inadequate. I hope that the Secretary of State will increase that. I hope he will also take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Altrincham with regard to refugees, and particularly with regard to doctors. The French at the present time are making an extraordinarily successful experiment in training African doctors and nurses in their institution at Dakar. Supposing we were to take into our Colonial Empire these German doctors, who would gladly go for a pittance a year to any job that would give them a useful avenue of occupation in their misery at the present time, and let them train these native doctors and nurses who are required, I believe that for a trifling expenditure we could in a few short years absolutely revolutionise the health conditions in our Colonial Empire to the immense economic benefit of the Empire as a whole. Major Orde-Brown said that

the native labourer in East Africa is often a perambulating museum of disease. How, then, can he be expected to do good work?
I should have liked to illustrate the same theme with regard to agricultural education. The hon. Member who spoke last but one about the report of the Marketing of Cocoa in the Gold Coast and Nigeria brought out the very interesting point that, while some plan to deal with the immediate problem is urgently required— and I agree with him— if the Government will not have the Commission's plan, they must make another of their own, and make it very soon. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us they are going to do it. He brought out the interesting point that even more important than the immediate plan is some real education for the 300,000 cocoa farmers of the Gold Coast and of Nigeria. Wherever you go in the Empire you will find that there is an immense loss at the present time, and that disasters occur if the standard of living is lower than it ought to be because the native peoples are not being given the simple agricultural education which they need, and by which they would benefit, and which would prove an immensely valuable investment. I believe that a development of that kind is our moral duty, but it is in our Imperial and material interests. as well.
I come, finally, to the point which has emerged most clearly from this Debate, namely, the necessity for some great development of Parliamentary control over Colonial administration. The hon. Member for Abingdon said that we should be ready now, if necessary, to reorganise the whole machinery of our Colonial system, and I hope that the Secretary of State is going to tell us that he will very seriously consider whether he cannot give Parliament a far better chance to share his responsibilities and to discharge its own. To-day's Debate has shown how utterly grotesque the present system is. Members in all quarters of the Committee have shown that there have been dozens of burning issues which they have not been able to raise. The hon. Member for East Rhondda, who was a member of the Bledisloe Commission, has not been able to deal with the immensely important matters with which that Commission had to deal. The Secretary of State said that the electorate ought to be conscious of its duty in this regard, and that he


thought we were more conscious of our responsibilities than we used to be. He also spoke of the benefit of the system of Parliamentary Questions. It is beneficial, but what can you do by Parliamentary Questions in matters of major policy? You really cannot touch them.
The truth is that, as Miss Perham said about Nigeria, if irresponsibility is the danger of all bureaucracies, the Colonial service is in an especially vulnerable position. The only way in which the officials in the wilds of Africa and elsewhere are guided is by the discussions that we have here. I think that publicity is the very life blood of good government. Sir Donald Cameron said of Tanganyika that it had been a great advantage that
from the date of its foundation the administration had been open to the full glare of public opinion, which must be and does act as a stimulus and corrective.
It is because of the publicity which it involves that we should like to extend the mandate system to our Colonial Empire. The advantage of it has been proved in the most unlikely places. As Mr. George Steer has shown in a recent book, its value has been proved in the Union of South Africa and in German South-West Africa. The ruthless publicity of Geneva is the strongest of safeguards and guarantees.
If the Government are not willing to make the declaration that we should like them to do, let them say that we will accept for ourselves and our Colonial Empire the main principles on which the mandate system is based. Short of that there are certain things that we can and ought to do. Let our Colonial reports be in the Tanganyika form, based on the Mandate Commission's questionnaire. We could then send the reports to Geneva, not for public debate but for the information of those who deal with the mandate system. Above all, we should back up the proposal of Lord Hailey with regard to a Parliamentary committee. Such a committee, as he says, could act as the Mandates Commission acts. It could have reports, it could interview officials from the Colonial Office and from the territories themselves, and on the basis of its reports it could report to the House of Commons. The objections raised against that plan have no validity. It is said, where are you to stop if you

are to have a foreign affairs committee, too? A foreign affairs committee is utterly different from a matter which involves day-to-day administration. I hope that in this matter the Secretary of State will listen to what has been said, that he will act on the will of the House and set up this Parliamentary committee. If he does that, he will have given one more proof that democracy rule works, and our Debate to-day will not have been in vain.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDonald: Almost all the speeches to-day have been couched in a highly critical tone. I have felt somewhat like the celebrated Light Brigade. Hon. Members will recollect of the Light Brigade that:
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them.
Volley'd and thunder'd.

Mr. Gallacher: And behind them.

Mr. MacDonald: I make no complaint on that score. Indeed, I think it is good and proper that the critical faculty of this Committee and of hon. Members should be exercised on the question of Colonial administration. I agree entirely that the situation in the Colonial Empire is nothing to be complacent about. I have been charged in speech after speech with unpleasant complacency, but I do not think that the charge is justified. It is quite true that in my speech I ventured to put on record some of the general lines of progress which have been made in the past 12 months and some of our general objectives; but what did I say also in that speech? I said:
There is no room for complacency about our achievements. Far from it. We have still a very long way to go, if we are to attain our objectives.
There is complete unanimity in the House about that description of the general situation. Even if that be true, it is no reason why we should concentrate on painting an entirely black picture of Colonial administration. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), who opened the Debate for the Opposition said that he could paint a bright picture if he wanted to, but he refused to do that. Indeed he said that he was deliberately going to paint the other side of the picture, and I think some other hon. Members have rather tended to do the same. I do not complain, it may be the right thing


to do in one of these rare Colonial Office Debates, but all 1 would is that, granted the great force of many of the criticisms which have been levelled by hon. Members, I cannot believe that we have had a properly balanced picture of the goods and the bads in our Colonial Empire presented to the Committee this afternoon.
A great many individual points have been raised and I am sure the Committee will appreciate that I cannot deal with all of them in the comparatively short space of time that is left, but let me deal with some of them. Let me, for instance, say something on the question with which the hon. Member for Went-worth opened his onslaught. He spoke about the rate of wages in Africa and quoted figures for this place and for that place. I have not time to deal with all the examples he gave, but let me take an absolutely typical case to which the hon. Member attached great importance — the wages in Tanganyika. He said that unskilled labourers were being paid from 5s. to 10s. a month for their labour. I hope what I am going to say will not be misunderstood. I am not necessarily defending that rate of wages, but do let the Committee get a proper perspective on these matters. These wages, when quoted casually and without qualification, lead the public of this country automatically to compare them with wages in this country, and the result does not really give a correct picture of the position because the conditions in East Africa and the conditions in this country are completely and totally different.
Take the case of the unskilled man in Tanganyika who is getting a wage of between 5s. and 10s. a month. What are his obligations compared with the obligations of a wage earner in this country? In the first place, he leaves his dependants behind him on tribal land. They are looked after there; they are no charge upon him whatever. In the second place, at his place of work he has free housing, he has not to pay one cent for rent. In the third place, normally he has not to pay even a penny a day for food because he gets his rations free, and the fact is that the only expenditure he has out of his wage, which is admittedly a small wage, is the taxation which he has to pay to the Government, which in Tanganyika averages 10s. per year. When these facts are presented completely one does at least get a rather

different picture than the one which is left in the mind by the criticism of the hon. Member for Wentworth.
I do not say for a moment that the position is satisfactory. I agree that the labour conditions in many of the Colonies could be improved and will be improved as trade and industry improve, and it is for that reason that in the case of Tanganyika, for example, we are taking action which may help to improve the situation. It is because of this sort of state of affairs that last year we appointed a labour inspector for the Territory. It is because of that sort of state of affairs that since the labour inspector was appointed, we have given him six assistant labour inspectors. We are creating there an effective Labour Department for the inspection of conditions and to advise the Governor on improvements which might be introduced. In addition, it is because of that sort of state of affairs that we have drafted, and shall shortly introduce in Tanganyika, minimum wage legislation.
Let me take now the case that was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). He turned his attention to Kenya, and spoke about the Order in Council which has recently been passed regarding what are called the White Highlands. He said that at this moment large groups of natives are being "torn out of the soil" where they have lived for so long. The principle of removing natives from the Highlands to other lands was approved long ago by the House, and I am not going to reopen the discussion on the principle; nor, I think, would the hon. Member wish to do so at this stage. He was criticising the administration of the law which has now been introduced. I say that his description of large groups of natives at this moment being torn out of the soil is absolutely inaccurate. What is happening?

Mr. Creech Jones: I can produce evidence of what is happening. I have a whole series of orders of eviction of groups of natives, in some cases there being many hundreds in the group; and they are now under notice to remove from their land.

Mr. MacDonald: Let me describe the machinery that has been established in order to protect the interests of these natives. In the first place, all the natives


— including the ones to whom the hon. Member has just referred— are to stay on their present land in the Highlands until suitable and equivalent alternative accommodation or compensation has been found. Secondly, as long as they do stay on the land, they continue in the enjoyment of every one of the rights which they have been enjoying for many years past. Their rights have not in practice been extinguished. Thirdly, if these natives are not satisfied with the alternative land which is offered to them, they have the right of appeal against the offer which is being made to them. No doubt, if the natives to whom the hon. Member has referred are dissatisfied, they will exercise their right of appeal. That appeal in their case has to be examined by two authorities. In the first place, it has to be examined by the Native Lands Trust Committee. That Committee is composed of five individuals; the chairman is the Chief Native Commissioner, and two out of the other four members are the individuals who are nominated unofficial members of the Legislative Council who are put on the Council especially to represent native interests. At the present time, one of them is a missionary and the other is the late Chief Native Commissioner. I say that is a perfectly properly constituted tribunal for considering these matters. In addition the Governor himself has to be satisfied that the offer of alternative land is equitable, and unless the Native Lands Trust Committee and the Governor are both satisfied as to the terms of the transfer, the natives do not leave the European Highlands.
I am afraid I shall have to content myself with sending communications to a number of Members who have raised points on which I think in many cases the information that they have received was inaccurate. But let me deal with one of the major questions which have run through the whole of the speeches. I quite agree that, although we are making progress in the establishment of social services, our progress has been almost insignificant compared with what we should like to see it and what we hope it will one day reach. The whole problem is where we are going to get the money to finance new developments. Hon. Members have been very critical, but not many of them have come forward with

suggestions as to where the money is to come from. The hon. Member for Went-worth made a positive suggestion which would only result in our having even less money than we have to-day, because the well-being of many of these Colonies depends on their export crops. The revenue which the Governments enjoy depends very largely on the success of producers in selling their export crops to markets overseas. When we went to the Ottawa Conference we designed a complicated system of Imperial preferences which has been of enormous practical benefit in getting new markets and expanding present markets for those invaluable export crops. If I understood the hon. Member correctly, one of his proposals was that the Ottawa preferences should be abolished.
Some hon. Members have, however, suggested means of getting more money for our efforts in the Colonial Empire. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made, as always, a constructive and extremely interesting speech. Perhaps I might answer a specific question that he put as to the number of refugees from Central Europe who had gone into Kenya in recent months. The figure is some 200 in the last six months. Of course, that does not satisfy him. His whole proposal was that, if we are going to be able to finance these social services, for which we ourselves have created a demand among the indigenous people, we have to put into the Colonies something which is not there to-day. He asked us to look at the example of Palestine and accept numbers of refugees, who, in the first place, according to his suggestion, would establish themselves on subsistence agricultural settlements, and in the second place might bring capital and start industries. That is exactly the sort of thing we should like to do, and we have certain commissions of inquiry as to the possibility of that in a number of colonies. One is very unpopular if one breathes the word British Guiana in this assembly, but we have from the Commission of Inquiry which went there a report which, rightly or wrongly, says exactly the sort of thing the hon. Gentleman has in mind as a possibility in that Colony. They have suggested— and we have accepted the suggestion— the idea of an experimental agricultural settlement in the first place and, secondly, an immediate investigation into the possibilities of in-


dustrial development. As far as Africa is concerned, with which the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested, we have a commission of inquiry making a similar examination of the possibilities in Northern Rhodesia. That commission is visiting Nyasaland with a view to examining the possibilities there, when it has finished its work in Northern Rhodesia. We have had recommendations from the Governor of Tanganyika which we have already sent on to the Refugee Committee. I am not going to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the extent of the practical possibilities of his suggestion. I will only say that as far as the possibilities do turn out to be practical, we intend to pursue them in the British colonies which I have mentioned.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have this afternoon shown themselves to be greatly concerned about the general state of affairs in the Colonial Empire. They have said that Parliament should have more say in the conduct of Colonial affairs, that Parliament should take a bigger part in these matters. Some hon. Members have been in favour of more debates on Colonial affairs in this public forum, on the Floor of the House itself. Others have been in favour of the establishment of some special committee of Parliament which would assist the Secretary of State in his responsibility. One hon. Member thought that we ought to follow the example of the Belgian Committee. May I point out that the first person in this Debate— and I take no credit for it because it is the obvious point to make— to mention the special responsibility of Parliament and the representatives of the people for Colonial administration was myself. I did so deliberately in order to provoke exactly the kind of discussion which we have had and I do promise the House that I will give further consideration to the suggestions which have been made.
We have really got two questions to consider. In the first place, have we

the right machine for running the Colonial Empire? In the second place, has that machine got enough oil and petrol to make it work full speed ahead? [An HON. MEMBER: "It has plenty of gas!"] I would only say that these questions have been exercising our attention in the Colonial Office for some time past. I am not going into details; but for instance the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that it was beneath the dignity of the Colonial Office to study French methods and what the French were doing in their Colonies. May I tell him that he is entirely wrong. Some time ago I sent one of my advisers to Paris to make contact with the French Colonial Office and examine French methods of administration and as a result of that visit, I have a report in the Colonial Office now, pointing out the French ways of doing things which differ from the ways to which we have been accustomed. In our consideration in the Colonial Office, my advisers have certainly not found it beneath their dignity to examine French methods and other foreign methods as well.

Colonel Wedgwood: There is nothing in the report.

Mr. MacDonald: That is the sort of thing which at the present time it is better that we should keep under our hand. I started this Debate by saying that Parliament could be extremely helpful to the Government, in helping to make and to guide policy. I think this Debate has been an illustration of the truth of that remark; it is a point on which there is agreement between us and every part of the Committee.

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £ 122,823, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 188.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Burke, W. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Bellenger, F. J.
Cape, T.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Charleton, H. C.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Benson, G.
Cocks, F. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Broad, F. A.
Collindridge, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bromfield, W.
Cove, W. G.


Banfield, J. W.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Barnes, A. J.
Buchanan, G.
Daggar, G.




Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Sloan, A.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Stephen, C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.
Thurtle, E.


Groves, T. E.
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, J. J.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Montague, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walkden, A. G.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Muff, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.
Westwood, J.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Owen, Major G.
White, H. Graham


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hopkin, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hen. F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, a. N.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.



Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES, —


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Dodd, J. S
Keeling, E. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Kellett, Major E. O.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Albery, Sir Irving
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Dunglass, Lord
Latham, Sir P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Lees-Jones, J.


Assheton, R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (isle of Thanet)
Ellis, Sir G.
Lipson, D. L.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lyons, A. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bernays, R. H.
Errington, E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine-Hilt, A. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S)
McKie, J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Magnay, T.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Furness, S. N.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maxwell, Hon, S. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Medlicott, F.


Bull, B. B.
Gledhill, G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Carver, Major W: H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.


Cary, R. A.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nall, Sir J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Channon, H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Patrick, C. M.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter. Major H. A.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Higgs, W. F.
Radford, E. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holdsworth, H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Croft. Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hunter, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crossley, A. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jennings, R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rowlands, G.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.




Russell, Sir Alexander
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull


Salmon, Sir I.
Storey, S.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Salt, E. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Samuel, M. R. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Schuster, Sir G. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Sutcliffe, H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. O.
Tasker, Sir R. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel C.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Sir W
Thomas, J. P. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Snadden, W. McN.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Somerset, T.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tree, A. R. L. F.



Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spears, Brigadier-General E L.
Wakefield, W. W.
Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-


Spans. W. P.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Colonel Kerr.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. John Morgan: Mr. John Morgan rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn." — [Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'clock